[robalni]

> Why would a user want to subscribe to only one developer?

Subscribing to one is easier than subscribing to many. There is less friction and the user gets more for that subscription.

> Why does subscribing to one developer give access to all developers?

All developers (and everyone else) can add subscription checks to whatever they like that will let only subscribers pass.

> Why not put yourself in the middle and offer a subscription to "1Sub.dev" and give users the same benefits?

Then they would all have to pay me. I don't want that. Someone could have something against paying me. Maybe the payment methods I offer doesn't work for someone. Distributing payments seems like the only right thing to do.

> What does it mean to "give access to downloads and other resources"? What kind of downloads and resources?

It could be anything. Here is an example of a paywall for this comments page that will only let subscribers follow the link:

    https://1sub.dev/link?u=https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id%3D&s=p_GonuAYEe0&k=&n=hK5ZOXymlHi5s2Es&a=a.18

> Can you give some examples of services that exist that you think don't work well enough?

I don't know what kind of services you mean.

[spuz]

I'm very confused about how the distributed payment system would work. How much would a subscription cost for a user and how much would a developer see of that?

> I don't know what kind of services you mean.

You write on your website: "Why this is better than the alternatives"

If you could give examples of the alternatives that you think don't work then it might be helpful to see how your service differs from those.

[robalni]

> I'm very confused about how the distributed payment system would work. How much would a subscription cost for a user and how much would a developer see of that?

Developers could sell subscriptions for any price they want. They have a limited number of subscriptions they can sell so there is a supply/demand that influences the price. Users buy directly from the developers so they would get 100% of the money (minus possible transaction fees depending on payment method).

> If you could give examples of the alternatives that you think don't work then it might be helpful to see how your service differs from those.

The alternatives are mainly the ones listed on the page above: buying things from developers in the usual way and donating. There are also other systems that work in a more centralized way where you pay the system that then distributes the money to the creators and this system differs from all of those in that it doesn't handle any money.

If you want an example, there is liberapay.com that seems to be donations with centralized payments. My system tries to be better than that because:

- Payments are less voluntary because you get access to stuff when you pay.

- Payments are decentralized so there can be more freedom of choice in how you pay.