4 ms·

Maybe a public service dating app makes sense. The alignment of incentives are all wrong for private dating apps. They obviously lose when you find someone and

by mvc 2y ago

Maybe a public service dating app makes sense. The alignment of incentives are all wrong for private dating apps. They obviously lose when you find someone and pair up so they're incentivised not to find a match.

rwmj 2y ago
Are there dating apps that work like recruitment, eg. it's free but you pay a fee when you get married or something like that?
- foobarbecue 2y ago
  I like the concept, but it seems impossible in practice. How on earth would the billing system work? If it's self-reporting, no one will report. It's interesting how "honor system" can work for certain in-person businesses, but I don't think it could ever work for a dating app.
  - lolc 2y ago
    I've been thinking an escrow system could work. On signup, you pledge to donate to a charity when you leave. Candidates won't be able to get back their funds, they can only release them. Once they have a mate, their mate would make sure the money is released. The platform could take a cut to finance their operations. The amount pledged and the charity could be public for extra virtue signaling.
    - foobarbecue 2y ago
      Oh wow! That's brilliant! I think it could work.
- optimalsolver 2y ago
  RumpelApp asks for your first-born child should you successfully match.
nox101 2y ago
This is commonly repeated but I don’t think it has any basis in reality. Dating apps compete. the one your friends tell you they met their partner is the one you sign up for.
- downWidOutaFite 2y ago
  The competition is an illusion, match.com bought up all the popular apps.
- Rinzler89 2y ago
  >the one your friends tell you they met their partner is the one you sign up for That's also survivorship bias. My friend met his GF at a sports-group. I've been going to that sports group for a year and didn't meet a GF. I met my ex-GF in a coffee shop. My friend has been going to that coffeeshop for a while and didn't meet a GF. There's too much randomness in dating and variance between people, to draw conclusion that just because an app or social place/group worked for one person it will bring results to another. There's no sure thing in dating apps, otherwise everyone would be on that one app and stop going out altogether if it were that easy to find a partner.
- PaulHoule 2y ago
  At least here in the states they have all been bought up by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Match.com https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Match.com
kevinventullo 2y ago
Perhaps the government could directly incentivize dating apps to create “good” matches by including an optional field on marriage registrations indicating on which app, if any, the couple met. The government could then pay the companies directly a kind of bounty per couple (or tax credit or something). Unlike other incentive systems, I feel like this one would be harder to abuse since there’s a fair amount of friction to getting married.

by mvc 2y ago

rwmj 2y ago

Are there dating apps that work like recruitment, eg. it's free but you pay a fee when you get married or something like that?

foobarbecue 2y ago
I like the concept, but it seems impossible in practice. How on earth would the billing system work? If it's self-reporting, no one will report. It's interesting how "honor system" can work for certain in-person businesses, but I don't think it could ever work for a dating app.
- lolc 2y ago
  I've been thinking an escrow system could work. On signup, you pledge to donate to a charity when you leave. Candidates won't be able to get back their funds, they can only release them. Once they have a mate, their mate would make sure the money is released. The platform could take a cut to finance their operations. The amount pledged and the charity could be public for extra virtue signaling.
  - foobarbecue 2y ago
    Oh wow! That's brilliant! I think it could work.
optimalsolver 2y ago
RumpelApp asks for your first-born child should you successfully match.

nox101 2y ago

This is commonly repeated but I don’t think it has any basis in reality. Dating apps compete. the one your friends tell you they met their partner is the one you sign up for.

downWidOutaFite 2y ago
The competition is an illusion, match.com bought up all the popular apps.
Rinzler89 2y ago
>the one your friends tell you they met their partner is the one you sign up for That's also survivorship bias. My friend met his GF at a sports-group. I've been going to that sports group for a year and didn't meet a GF. I met my ex-GF in a coffee shop. My friend has been going to that coffeeshop for a while and didn't meet a GF. There's too much randomness in dating and variance between people, to draw conclusion that just because an app or social place/group worked for one person it will bring results to another. There's no sure thing in dating apps, otherwise everyone would be on that one app and stop going out altogether if it were that easy to find a partner.
PaulHoule 2y ago
At least here in the states they have all been bought up by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Match.com https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Match.com

kevinventullo 2y ago

Perhaps the government could directly incentivize dating apps to create “good” matches by including an optional field on marriage registrations indicating on which app, if any, the couple met. The government could then pay the companies directly a kind of bounty per couple (or tax credit or something). Unlike other incentive systems, I feel like this one would be harder to abuse since there’s a fair amount of friction to getting married.