Thread

Replies (43)

As a relay operator, this is the issue. No one wants to actually pay. @nostr.land is already working on these so called use cases โ€œwhich paid relay operators are not incentivized to supportโ€ without needing ecash. No one wants to pay for relays or media hosting until it bites them in the ass. Many things, like the <$0.5/mo price figure listed on the post, are examples of peopleโ€™s price expectations for a premium service. These prices are simply unsustainable for relay operators unless there is more demand (that is larger than the current usercount of Nostr).
Youโ€™re not wrong at all small scale. But weโ€™re still at the beginning. Heard someone recently suggest that Nostr wins in the long run because itโ€™s the cockroach that refuses to die. And even projects like signal and simplex run into funding issues to run the relays. I really do think micro payments has been a missing technical component, weโ€™ve never practically been able to stream tiny amounts of money privately. For sure for this all to work Nostr needs to 100x in user count, if not more.
Ecash payments donโ€™t work. Relays being paid per connection or per event is not a sustainable model as the cost for the operatoe is mostly the same even if you post 50 times a day or 1. And $0.5/mo doesnโ€™t work unless you have millions and millions of users that all pay *to a single service*. No one selling it for that cheap will provide you a quality service. You also canโ€™t reach the required scale for economies of scale without people paying for relays *now*.
Correct on subscription pay. Disagree on ads. This narrative is pushed by a fringe cult within Nostr. Ads fuel every platform that exists today and has existed for 50yrs. Ads will be a part of Nostr. But in a way that's: -Tolerable, not obnoxious -Private, not spyware -Respectful of users time/attention -Funds creators, relays, clients I'm working on bringing all this together in a way that works. Nostr diehards can hate me all they want, but the current model won't sustain the ecosystem. Responsible ads will.
Stupid model, but that works almost everywhere. You're kind of describing support departments. The are entirely funded off added cost to the purchase price of the product, but more accurately, customers who paid for the product and didn't use support paid for other people to use support. The same goes for shipping in a slightly different context. We made a model of weighted averages where essentially a "tax" was added to the median products to subsidize the shipping cost on the larger products. So the more frequent purchases made up the difference for the more infrequent (heavier/long distance) purchases. obvi this happens everywhere, I just wanted to break down that this is not new and companies everywhere do something similar because selling anything almost anywhere is "unsustainable" in many ways.
Which I see that you recognize here. This model works _realy_ well to make offering products sustainable. Distribution is the right word I suppose.
User's avatar npub12262...grkj
ecash based models tie prices to nonsense metrics that push high activity users away while undercharging low activity users even though they use a similar amount of resources in the grand scale of things, which is not correlated to โ€œactivityโ€ measured in events
View quoted note →
> Yeah but in this case, itโ€™s a one time fee for a recurring expense Yeah it hides the actual cost of offering a service. Appealing to user's ideals, which in some cases is useful. As someone who prefers one-time costs over reoccurring costs, I also understand that unless you can accurately bill me, its not a true model. While it's nice to save money when purchasing bulk, I prefer up-front costs for a sense of "freedom" and "completeness". I still think it's possible to sell accurately priced products with longer time frames. The same distribution still occurs right, if I pay you up front, you have access to more capital, which can be more valuable compared to minimum short term payments. Therefore a tax is added to short term payment plans and/or a discount applied to initial payments/contracts.
Accurate and fair. I would agree lifetime is too far out. At least on the hardware side of things, it generally apears to be within about the 60-month lease window where prices are somewhat stable. When new hardware is released from Nvidia, or Dell, or HP, give it about 1-2 years for machines to ship, then cost of new products and derivative products go up, and old harware sells of in proportion to new hardware prices. Meaning new hardware has steadily increased in MSRP, and older hardware prices fall in proportion. So machines appear to be losing their value "slower".