|
|
|
|
|
|
by arcticbull
1638 days ago
|
|
|
Microtransactions have been something we could take advantage of since the dawn of custodial wallets - at least since PayPal came into existence in 1998. However, microtransactions aren't something humans actually like. It's something technocrats think people want, but when they get it, well - let's just say there's piles of carcasses of dead startups littering the field. As Nick Szabo will attest, each transaction you make consciously carries with it a mental cost. It sucks. People would much rather a Netflix model to a pay-as-you-go model even if it ends up costing them more money in the long run. [1] > We can now make a pay-to-use netflix, something we haven’t done yet. [edit] I hate to break this to you, but you just described the Apple Music, TV and Movie stores, the first of which (music) has existed since the dawn of the iPod in 2001. Also the Amazon equivalents. And a pile of others. [1] https://nakamotoinstitute.org/static/docs/micropayments-and-... |
|
|
However, why couldn’t we have both options be available?
If there is one film on a streaming service that I know I’d like to watch, but don’t want to commit to $10 a month just to watch the first 30 mins of, why can’t I pay for the minutes of the media I watch instead?
This also could be an interesting monetization method for creators who make videos on YouTube who dislike adverts. I’d be more happy to pay to support the creators directly, if I knew they’d get a good cut.
I don’t think it’s fair to say that humans don’t like micro transactions as we’ve never been able to try it in the real world. Sure, they might not work for everything, but they may allow for new things to flourish. Things that cost $0.001 cents for example.