5 ms·

Please ignore if this takes us off-topic, but is this a case for micropayments, done via cryptocurrency? Because I think a successful implementation of micropa

by ekanes 5y ago

Please ignore if this takes us off-topic, but is this a case for micropayments, done via cryptocurrency? Because I think a successful implementation of micropayments might solve for this. I don't want to subscribe to any regular news, but I'd be happy to click a button that gives $.25 to the author/site. That doesn't work with CC fees, but if micropayments done via crypto (there are many with low/no transaction costs).

nemothekid 5y ago
If you have a paywall, a subscription works a lot better. If you don't, ads have a better CPM than donations.
khalladay 5y ago
I could be misremembering, but this seems like an idea that's been tried (and failed before). I have a memory of a service whose pitch was that you'd load funds into an account (a 1 time large transaction to get past the CC fees), and then individual sites could request micropayments from that account balance. No crypto then of course, but I'm not sure adding crypto makes this idea functionally different from how it looks without it. I could be totally off my rocker, but I'm pretty sure I remember this from sometime around the early 2010's ?
- fragmede 5y ago
  The failure in the 2010s, is due to (lack of) network effects (from lack of participation), among other things. Crypto doesn't necessarily solve this but things like the Solana cryptocurrency enable solutions built on top of it.
- ryandrake 5y ago
  I think the point is that nobody wants to make some account, then pre-load that account with money, and then wonder what the balance is, etc. etc. etc. Yuck! If this problem is going to be properly solved, someone has to solve the [evidently very hard] problem of being able to send $0.25 over the Internet without all these accounts and without getting overwhelmed with fees from the banking establishment. If we had a magic wand, and there were no technical, business, or security constraints, what would the ideal micropayment system look like? A button on the web page that, when I press it, sends $0.25 from my bank account to the web site. Isn't something like that the holy grail? No need to "have an account" at the web site, and "have an account" with the payment processor or pre-load things with funds or any of that garbage. I already have a bank account, why do I need a handful of other accounts all over the place? There's the UX. I think it would be successful. But nobody has managed to build it yet.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - meetups323 5y ago
    This is what Web3 is supposed to be. "Want to store some data? Just pay the market rate for data storage!" Of course they chose the most expensive and unwieldy data storage mechanism imaginable. Inb4 "but X chain is so cheap!", all chains are cheap until they're popular. Make a chain that gets faster&cheaper to commit on as the amount of compute on it increases (as you would expect... pretty much any CS thing to work) and you've solved web3. Oh but then the asset is inherently inflationary and people care more about getting in on the next big hockey stick than sound financial instruments. So... there you have it.
    - thebean11 5y ago
      The blockchains you are thinking of were never meant to be data storage layers. The proof-of-storage chains (at least, the ones that store "real" data) are much more reasonable, check out prices for storage on FileCoin. The distinction here is that nodes publish proof that they have data stored on chain, rather than publishing the data itself on chain.
      - meetups323 5y ago
        Yep, proof of storage is the only way forward as far as I'm concerned. At least of the currently available options. But they aren't great for representing a ledger. Some sort of hybrid is needed.
  - ghaff 5y ago
    Back in the dot-com era (and maybe since), there were some startups in the micropayments space. >If we had a magic wand, and there were no technical, business, or security constraints, what would the ideal micropayment system look like? A button on the web page that, when I press it, sends $0.25 from my bank account to the web site. That sounds like exposing my bank account quite a bit too freely. The obvious approach is that you have an account with someone who collects the money and distributes it--and yes it would probably be prepaid. In any case, if there were a demand the technical and UX problems can be overcome. The bigger issue, other than establishing the network, are getting people to actually pay per article--given that we've mostly moved to all you can eat subscriptions for other media--at an amount that would actually pay the bills. And in light of the fact that a lot of people don't want mental transaction costs to decide if reading an article is worth it every time they want to read something. (Which Clay Shirky brought up 20 years ago.)
- azza2110 5y ago
  I think you are talking about Blendle which up until a few years ago let you pay by the article for many major newspapers and magazines. I miss it.
agentdrtran 5y ago
This has been trialed several places before and never taken off, the type of people willing to engage in micropayments at all, but who will never subscribe at any price point, seems to be quite small.
- nonameiguess 5y ago
  Not entirely true. There are a few porn sites that have had success moving away from "all scenes access" subscription models to load up an account and purchase individual scenes from the pool models. And, of course, services like Clips4Sale have always worked this way. I suspect it would work well enough for any kind of cross platform video on demand service, not just adult, but no such thing exists right now because streaming providers largely don't work with each other the way porn providers do, preferring to own both the content and the platform. Another part of this is I guess the payments aren't really "micro" in the video case, as filmed scenes are more expensive to produce and more valuable to consume than most written articles, so they can charge more per scene than anyone would ever pay per article.
ptman 5y ago
https://webmonetization.org/ https://webmonetization.org/ the transactions need to batched, e.g. once per month

by ekanes 5y ago

nemothekid 5y ago

If you have a paywall, a subscription works a lot better. If you don't, ads have a better CPM than donations.

khalladay 5y ago

I could be misremembering, but this seems like an idea that's been tried (and failed before). I have a memory of a service whose pitch was that you'd load funds into an account (a 1 time large transaction to get past the CC fees), and then individual sites could request micropayments from that account balance. No crypto then of course, but I'm not sure adding crypto makes this idea functionally different from how it looks without it. I could be totally off my rocker, but I'm pretty sure I remember this from sometime around the early 2010's ?

fragmede 5y ago
The failure in the 2010s, is due to (lack of) network effects (from lack of participation), among other things. Crypto doesn't necessarily solve this but things like the Solana cryptocurrency enable solutions built on top of it.
ryandrake 5y ago
I think the point is that nobody wants to make some account, then pre-load that account with money, and then wonder what the balance is, etc. etc. etc. Yuck! If this problem is going to be properly solved, someone has to solve the [evidently very hard] problem of being able to send $0.25 over the Internet without all these accounts and without getting overwhelmed with fees from the banking establishment. If we had a magic wand, and there were no technical, business, or security constraints, what would the ideal micropayment system look like? A button on the web page that, when I press it, sends $0.25 from my bank account to the web site. Isn't something like that the holy grail? No need to "have an account" at the web site, and "have an account" with the payment processor or pre-load things with funds or any of that garbage. I already have a bank account, why do I need a handful of other accounts all over the place? There's the UX. I think it would be successful. But nobody has managed to build it yet.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- meetups323 5y ago
  This is what Web3 is supposed to be. "Want to store some data? Just pay the market rate for data storage!" Of course they chose the most expensive and unwieldy data storage mechanism imaginable. Inb4 "but X chain is so cheap!", all chains are cheap until they're popular. Make a chain that gets faster&cheaper to commit on as the amount of compute on it increases (as you would expect... pretty much any CS thing to work) and you've solved web3. Oh but then the asset is inherently inflationary and people care more about getting in on the next big hockey stick than sound financial instruments. So... there you have it.
  - thebean11 5y ago
    The blockchains you are thinking of were never meant to be data storage layers. The proof-of-storage chains (at least, the ones that store "real" data) are much more reasonable, check out prices for storage on FileCoin. The distinction here is that nodes publish proof that they have data stored on chain, rather than publishing the data itself on chain.
    - meetups323 5y ago
      Yep, proof of storage is the only way forward as far as I'm concerned. At least of the currently available options. But they aren't great for representing a ledger. Some sort of hybrid is needed.
- ghaff 5y ago
  Back in the dot-com era (and maybe since), there were some startups in the micropayments space. >If we had a magic wand, and there were no technical, business, or security constraints, what would the ideal micropayment system look like? A button on the web page that, when I press it, sends $0.25 from my bank account to the web site. That sounds like exposing my bank account quite a bit too freely. The obvious approach is that you have an account with someone who collects the money and distributes it--and yes it would probably be prepaid. In any case, if there were a demand the technical and UX problems can be overcome. The bigger issue, other than establishing the network, are getting people to actually pay per article--given that we've mostly moved to all you can eat subscriptions for other media--at an amount that would actually pay the bills. And in light of the fact that a lot of people don't want mental transaction costs to decide if reading an article is worth it every time they want to read something. (Which Clay Shirky brought up 20 years ago.)
azza2110 5y ago
I think you are talking about Blendle which up until a few years ago let you pay by the article for many major newspapers and magazines. I miss it.

agentdrtran 5y ago

This has been trialed several places before and never taken off, the type of people willing to engage in micropayments at all, but who will never subscribe at any price point, seems to be quite small.

nonameiguess 5y ago
Not entirely true. There are a few porn sites that have had success moving away from "all scenes access" subscription models to load up an account and purchase individual scenes from the pool models. And, of course, services like Clips4Sale have always worked this way. I suspect it would work well enough for any kind of cross platform video on demand service, not just adult, but no such thing exists right now because streaming providers largely don't work with each other the way porn providers do, preferring to own both the content and the platform. Another part of this is I guess the payments aren't really "micro" in the video case, as filmed scenes are more expensive to produce and more valuable to consume than most written articles, so they can charge more per scene than anyone would ever pay per article.

ptman 5y ago

https://webmonetization.org/ https://webmonetization.org/ the transactions need to batched, e.g. once per month