4 ms·

What? That creates a financial disincentive for long-term dating. Better is to pay a one time bounty when a good match is made

• lelanthran 5y ago
  > What? That creates a financial disincentive for long-term dating. Better is to pay a one time bounty when a good match is made There are larger financial disincentives[1] for long-term dating, and yet people do it regardless. The idea is actually quite good - if the relationship is not worth $1/m then it probably isn't a good relationship anyway. [1] I'm assuming you meant a $1/m subscription.
  • mslate 5y ago
    How did you come up with $1 as the market clearing price? At what monthly price point would you decide to dissolve your marriage? I don't think perpetual subscription pricing is a match-making model folks are interested in--as evidenced by the models that exist today in the market. I think that the reason bounty-based isn't widespread is that it's too easy to defraud--similar to a subscription house-cleaning service losing customers who go "off-platform".
    • lelanthran 5y ago
      > How did you come up with $1 as the market clearing price? I made it up. It could be $5, or more. > At what monthly price point would you decide to dissolve your marriage? That's a difficult question, and it varies over the years. For example I paid several dozens of thousands to get out of my first marriage, while I am willing to sacrifice a lot to keep my current wife. I think the fact that this model is almost purely voluntary from an enforcement PoV means that the couple will pay what they feel is fair: bad relationship and they'd feel no obligation to pay, while a good relationship might make them feel happy to pay for a while after staying together.