3 ms·
I really liked Flattr, and used it for a while. The big problem was getting money in and out. Their idea of accumulating microtransactions ("Flattrs") internal
by chriswarbo 3y ago
I really liked Flattr, and used it for a while. The big problem was getting money in and out.
Their idea of accumulating microtransactions ("Flattrs") internally for a month and dividing up a fixed amount was a really nice idea: both to reduce payment processor fees, and to remove any anxiety about clicking on a Flattr button (the same amount was spent per month, regardless of how many things were clicked, so go ahead).
However, those monthly payments were also internal: transferred between from one user's "account balance" to another, and those balances had to be topped up manually via a rather laborious bank transfer (supposedly to keep fees down). I think there was an assumption that money would be moving around a lot inside the platform, e.g. blogger A gets Flattred for their post, and they Flattr developer B's application, whilst B Flattrs musician C's song, etc. I think reality had more of a creator/consumer dynamic, which made it more important to smoothly get money into the platform.
I think they would have fared better by allowing users to be automatically charged each month (like Patreon, etc. who came later). The "account balance" idea could be simplified to withdraw-only, for tracking how much was received (i.e. 0 for almost all users); and perhaps allow that balance to be deducted from the monthly charge. It seems obvious in hindsight, and perhaps they did change to such a model; alas, I think their early buzz was squandered due to this friction.