4 ms·

There are lots of ways they could make a sustainable income without disrupting Bluesky's current status quo and be comfortably rich for the rest of their lives.

by gary_0 1y ago

There are lots of ways they could make a sustainable income without disrupting Bluesky's current status quo and be comfortably rich for the rest of their lives... but that's completely out of character for them and will never happen. I do think the geeks currently running Bluesky are sincere in keeping it decentralized, but the money people will someday probably force them out and squeeze the user base for a quick buck. A hardcore nerd minority will splinter off, though, and keep the decentralized version running, so whatever. History repeats. Frog swims, scorpion stings.

robertlagrant 1y ago
Is it a quick buck? How long has bluesky been funded for with no return?
- gary_0 1y ago
  I meant "quick buck" like flooding the place with ads, tracking, dark patterns, closing the API/protocol, or doing some sort of crypto scam, with no regard for the platform's long-term health. It's been funded for a few years? That's not really that long for such a small team. But I have no idea how their investors think it might make "Facebook money", and isn't that always the goal?
- Dylan16807 1y ago
  Quick meaning it's short term from when it starts. The time before it starts doesn't factor in.
  - robertlagrant 1y ago
    A quick buck would be the time from when you put your money in to when you get back your money and a profit.
    - Dylan16807 1y ago
      If you have a sudden massive change in plans like this, it resets the timer. You were doing long term, but now you want a quick buck and you don't care much if the company survives. If I set up a get rich quick scheme based on overhyping and selling land, it doesn't matter whether I buy the land today or it's land I had for decades for a completely different reason. Either way I'm going for a quick buck now.
      - robertlagrant 1y ago
        But they didn't have this for completely different reasons. They invested money years ago, that they could've bought government bonds with and just earned interest, and instead it went into BlueSky. At some point they'd like a return that would substantially beat the government bond they could've invested in with zero risk.
        Dylan16807 1y ago
        They invested for the long term. If they suddenly want the company to go all-in on short term profit extraction that is a big change in plan.
        robertlagrant 1y ago
        I agree, but I doubt from their perspective it's a quick buck. I appreciate from the perspective of people who got a free service and it's now getting monetised it might feel quick, but surely not surprising at some point. And they got a quick buck up front from not having to pay for the service, which is nice :)
YetAnotherNick 1y ago
> There are lots of ways they could make a sustainable income without disrupting Bluesky's current status quo Like what?
- gary_0 1y ago
  Off the top of my head: Paid hosting/services on top of the protocol, reddit-gold style tipping and gamification, being a transactional middleman (there are a lot of artists selling things, famous people promoting things, and so on), promoted posts and ads (easily blockable, but some users wouldn't bother). Bluesky is a small team of like ~30 people, if they keep running lean they have at least a chance of a decent profit margin. But none of that will make anyone a multi-billionaire, so never mind.
  - YetAnotherNick 1y ago
    I think you are wildly overestimating the user's willingness to pay online, and underestimating the costs to run a large scale site. Even if you remove developer's salaries and server costs, the fines could be worth 10s of millions of dollar per country just for delay in removal of hate speech[1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Enforcement_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Enforcement_Act
  - miki123211 1y ago
    They could also follow the Gmail playbook. For consumers, plenty of ads and plenty of tracking. For businesses, heavily-restricted user-to-server APIs and features gated behind subscriptions, think custom domains with Bsky hosting, multi-user post approvals, integrating DMs with customer support systems etc. You can do all of that while still being fair to and interoperable with the rest of the ecosystem. As long as you don't want the convenience, features and UI of Gmail, you can still communicate with Gmail users from any other provider, and the same could be true about Bsky.
beeflet 1y ago
>There are lots of ways they could make a sustainable income without disrupting Bluesky's current status quo and be comfortably rich for the rest of their lives... but that's completely out of character for them and will never happen. Sounds like reddit 15 years ago

by gary_0 1y ago

robertlagrant 1y ago

Is it a quick buck? How long has bluesky been funded for with no return?

gary_0 1y ago
I meant "quick buck" like flooding the place with ads, tracking, dark patterns, closing the API/protocol, or doing some sort of crypto scam, with no regard for the platform's long-term health. It's been funded for a few years? That's not really that long for such a small team. But I have no idea how their investors think it might make "Facebook money", and isn't that always the goal?
Dylan16807 1y ago
Quick meaning it's short term from when it starts. The time before it starts doesn't factor in.
- robertlagrant 1y ago
  A quick buck would be the time from when you put your money in to when you get back your money and a profit.
  - Dylan16807 1y ago
    If you have a sudden massive change in plans like this, it resets the timer. You were doing long term, but now you want a quick buck and you don't care much if the company survives. If I set up a get rich quick scheme based on overhyping and selling land, it doesn't matter whether I buy the land today or it's land I had for decades for a completely different reason. Either way I'm going for a quick buck now.
    - robertlagrant 1y ago
      But they didn't have this for completely different reasons. They invested money years ago, that they could've bought government bonds with and just earned interest, and instead it went into BlueSky. At some point they'd like a return that would substantially beat the government bond they could've invested in with zero risk.
      - Dylan16807 1y ago
        They invested for the long term. If they suddenly want the company to go all-in on short term profit extraction that is a big change in plan.
        robertlagrant 1y ago
        I agree, but I doubt from their perspective it's a quick buck. I appreciate from the perspective of people who got a free service and it's now getting monetised it might feel quick, but surely not surprising at some point. And they got a quick buck up front from not having to pay for the service, which is nice :)

YetAnotherNick 1y ago

> There are lots of ways they could make a sustainable income without disrupting Bluesky's current status quo Like what?

gary_0 1y ago
Off the top of my head: Paid hosting/services on top of the protocol, reddit-gold style tipping and gamification, being a transactional middleman (there are a lot of artists selling things, famous people promoting things, and so on), promoted posts and ads (easily blockable, but some users wouldn't bother). Bluesky is a small team of like ~30 people, if they keep running lean they have at least a chance of a decent profit margin. But none of that will make anyone a multi-billionaire, so never mind.
- YetAnotherNick 1y ago
  I think you are wildly overestimating the user's willingness to pay online, and underestimating the costs to run a large scale site. Even if you remove developer's salaries and server costs, the fines could be worth 10s of millions of dollar per country just for delay in removal of hate speech[1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Enforcement_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Enforcement_Act
- miki123211 1y ago
  They could also follow the Gmail playbook. For consumers, plenty of ads and plenty of tracking. For businesses, heavily-restricted user-to-server APIs and features gated behind subscriptions, think custom domains with Bsky hosting, multi-user post approvals, integrating DMs with customer support systems etc. You can do all of that while still being fair to and interoperable with the rest of the ecosystem. As long as you don't want the convenience, features and UI of Gmail, you can still communicate with Gmail users from any other provider, and the same could be true about Bsky.

beeflet 1y ago

>There are lots of ways they could make a sustainable income without disrupting Bluesky's current status quo and be comfortably rich for the rest of their lives... but that's completely out of character for them and will never happen. Sounds like reddit 15 years ago