3 ms·
Flattr was trying to bootstrap a sort of two-sided market from scratch. They needed to get both hosts/"content providers" and clients/"users" to sign up. This
by atq2119 3y ago
Flattr was trying to bootstrap a sort of two-sided market from scratch. They needed to get both hosts/"content providers" and clients/"users" to sign up.
This is just a very, very hard problem, and if we're being honest about it, most of the success stories that come to mind got there through burning venture capital, which perhaps Flattr didn't have enough of?
I don't think the idea is fundamentally flawed, it's just very difficult to do this kind of thing.
- hnbad 3y agoWell, they also made the mistake of initially trying to force both sides of the market to be one, i.e. you had to be a contributor (pay money to others) to collect money (let others pay you money). Also collecting money on behalf of others and then distributing it after sitting on it is an easy way to run afoul of anti money laundering laws in various jurisdictions. Also they did take investments which means they had to not only build a sustainable business but actually create a considerable ROI for their investors or risk them pulling the plug and cut their losses (which is presumably what happened given the lack of detail and "our wonderful journey" speak). So in other words they decided to play in hard mode (infinite growth) and then kneecapped themselves (to avoid "begging"). It's a miracle they survived this long. I had forgotten about them longer than I had used them.