Does everything have to be free on the hive blockchain?
Since the day when I joined the blockchain, I saw a lot of projects, apps, games coming into life and a big majority of them disappeared after a period of time. We have a lot of very creative people here on hive and it's rather easy to build something. The problem is when it comes into the long term, when the project needs to be updates, when server costs have to be paid, when the UI needs to be redesigned, when there needs to be a customer support or when FAQ have to be written.
Building a real project with all the necessary aspects is not that easy and it requires resources and also money. People need to get paid when they do a job and I believe that for any project that not only wants to start but wants to evolve, it needs to be able to cover its costs at least and even make a profit.
We are lucky to be able to use the hive front-ends for free
When I look at front-ends like peakd or ecency, I see a lot of development and a real great service provided. To build these front-ends and keep them working, money is needed. These front-ends allow us to make money with our content. Wouldn't it be fair that we pay for the tools that we use to make money?
I then see the premium concept that inleo has established and maybe it's not such a bad idea to think about asking for money to enjoy a service. I mean, we have all the tools in place. If peakd and ecency asked for a monthly subscription of a smaller amount, it would be very easy to implement that. Botting services for Splinterlands have shown how it can be done.
More competition, less DHF dependence, better service for Hive users
If apps and platforms manage to generate a real return, they become less dependent on the DHF. In addition, it generates some competition among the apps. If there is a service that generates a nice return, a competitor could try to do it better or cheaper. In the end, it's the hive users who would profit.
For my different projects for example, I'm looking for a service that is online and where I could pay dividends to a big number of people according to delegations or according to owning certain hive-engine tokens, without needing to have a developer environment on my computer. If such a service existed, I wouldn't mind to pay a 0.5% fee to the person running the website...
Making money is an incentive for development
If an app or a service works well and makes money, it has a direct incentive in bringing more people to it and maybe also people from outside of hive. I believe that we have to stop believing that everything needs to be for free and encourage entrepreneurship on hive.
With @ph1102, I'm running the @liotes project.
Please consider supporting our Witness nodes:
Great idea , it should be implemented. Yes then the projects don't have to relay on DHF's.
In my opinion it would a fairer solution and one that would profit the hive ecosystem more than what we have now.
Indeed, that is going to be helpful. @peakd has introduced the ads option. That is going to be beneficial.
I think it's a step in the good direction. With the development that peakd is providing they are trying to generate several income sources and I think it's great and goes towards a situation where they don't rely totally on the DHF.
Yes! It's a good idea and an interesting twist on the whole controversy some are complaining about regarding paid subs.
Thank you for your witness vote!
Have a !BEER on me!
To Opt-Out of my witness beer program just comment STOP below
View or trade
BEER.Hey @proto26, here is a little bit of
BEERfrom @isnochys for you. Enjoy it!Learn how to earn FREE BEER each day by staking your
BEER.I am all for paying more when a value added service is delivered. There is already a built in fee to post on Hive.
I think the Inleo Premium is a bad idea and the affiliate subscription program that is unfolding is a worse idea.
Again, I am all for paying when there is value added to an existing service but to charge extra to edit a post and to suggest you will make more money by subscribing is not about offering a quality product or service. That looks like a tactic to channel more money to an upline.
May Positive pepEntropy be with you.
!LOLZ
lolztoken.com
To get his quarterback.
Credit: reddit
@achim03, I sent you an $LOLZ on behalf of fjworld
(7/10)
Delegate Hive Tokens to Farm $LOLZ and earn 110% Rewards. Learn more.
I'm not really familiar with how Leo premium is working but I understand your point with what you say. I'd simply love to see real competition between the services provided on hive and not a domination by the ones that have DHF support.
If I had to pay 5 hive a month to be able to create content on peakd or ecency, I believe it would be a fair price. Let's not forget that we pay for everything that comes out of the DHF by devaluating our own assets...
If you could elaborate on this it would help me better understand the suggested negative side of DHF
I have given some thoughts about this option for funding my projects and at some point I may submit a proposal for funding. However, I have other options for project funding so it would be my way of testing and learning more about this aspect of Hive. And I would do it as a process improvement or problem solving initiative.
I need more information to follow this thought. How do we devalue our own asset? You mean our Hive holding or layer 2 token holdings?
!CENT
If you take Ecency, Peakd and Inleo they all have the support of the DHF either for their front-end or for another service that they provide, meaning they get hundreds of dollars every day from the DHF Check proposals. If somebody would want to develop a new front-end app, he would have to compete with these apps that have DHF support and that can provide a service that is seen as free by the users. However, it's not free because all the money that is paid through the DHF has a direct influence on the supply of hive. This is basically printed money and an inflation that is paid by all the people who own Hive.
This post has been manually curated by @steemflow from Indiaunited community. Join us on our Discord Server.
Do you know that you can earn a passive income by delegating to @indiaunited. We share more than 100 % of the curation rewards with the delegators in the form of IUC tokens. HP delegators and IUC token holders also get upto 20% additional vote weight.
Here are some handy links for delegations: 100HP, 250HP, 500HP, 1000HP.
100% of the rewards from this comment goes to the curator for their manual curation efforts. Please encourage the curator @steemflow by upvoting this comment and support the community by voting the posts made by @indiaunited.
Thanks for the curation!
Most (all?) Games already have a mechanism to pay. I'm not big on paying for social media or subscriptions in general. Hive already has a problem attracting and retaining users. I don't see how making them pay will help matters. I suppose front end authors could force a beneficiary and charge a small percent that way. I think 3speak does this and so does ecency when you post a video (but you can change it).
I totally agree with you that hive has an issue with retaining users. But we shouldn't think only about content creators as users. When I look at how Splinterlands evolved, they had to implement a system that you have to first invest before you can get rewards. It didn't prevent people from joining. Sometimes people don't appreciate what is for free. If they pay for it, they are probably more willing to try a second time. The beneficiary reward might be a solution. 3speak is doing it actively already, inleo as well. I didn't know about ecency.
Because of of the features/benefits of the HIVE block chain is no fees (and very few ads), the presumption is that everything built on this platform would also have no fees involved. But value for value, if a product is useful enough, people would be willing to pay. Many people here are investment-minded, so any service that has a cost associated, in many cases must offer a greater return than the cost.
It's and up-hill battle getting new people to use these products even for FREE, not because they are low-quality, but because for some reason people are afraid of the technology. Either they think crypto is a scam, or they're intimidated with posting requirements, or managing keys. I suspect it's a catch-22 situation: having too few users and few to no name-brand names, creates a psychological barrier for new users. How can we we get new users, unless we already have many users?
Once this blockchain (and platforms) reaches a "critical mass" of users, then I think we can discuss associated costs. Even a MASSIVE platform like "X" (with millions of users) only costs between $3.00/month and $16/month for their premium services. How much would a service on HIVE get away with charging per month?
You have some valid points and I don't pretend to know how things would work but we have to be clear that every platform and app need to have a viable business model. In my opinion relying on the DHF is not a sustainable model. Again, that's just my point of view.
A good example was Splinterlands, in order to be able to earn money with the game, you had to buy the starter pack. This didn't prevent people from joining Splinterlands. However, it probably encouraged them not to give up after the first trial.
Twitter has it's own business model but the difference with hive is that you can't earn money directly. I think it would be up to the platforms to define the price and people would then decide which platform they use accordingly.
Your comment is upvoted by @topcomment
You can support the Topcomment initiative by delegating HP
| 10 HP | 25 HP | 50 HP | 100 HP | 250 HP | 500 HP | 1000 HP |
I think it's a good idea. On other free social media, they also don't host your content forever for free.
Using the dhf to sustain projects long term means they aren't successful and therefore makes me question the long term sustainability of that tool.
When I look at splinterlands, everybody is ready to buy a starter pack to be able to earn money. So I think that it can work and I believe it would provide services with income sources that are more sustainable in the long run. If a platform needs 3000 users to cover its costs, it would probably put some efforts in trying to get them from inside or outside the ecosystem. They could make marketing within hive or outside and we would develop a whole new ecosystem.
I agree. There are also free options people could use if they don't want to pay, but it makes sense to pay $3 or so a month for a premium service that gives you access to earning Hive with so many extras.
I think the tiered version seems to work well in mainstream, be it X/Twitter or Spotify. Or even ChatGPT. Limited access for free users versus more functions for paid users. I think most of us wouldn't mind paying for something meaningful.
It could be a solution and service could come up with their own ideas and additional tools for content creators. They could offer different service sets for different users for different prices. I'm sure it would push development towards where people need it. At the moment, I have the feeling that some projects develop for the sake of developing to justify DHF money.
I think it's quite an unique system here.. And the DHF money isn't easy to get as well, as we have seen with the Splinterlands proposal.
You can set up beneficiaries to split the earnings. But I think the problem is not within HIVE.
Those who are registered on the blockchain and benefit from the communities and earning mechanisms and services of developers could continue to use the ecosystem for free, because they are the ones who keep it alive.
I think the problem lies outside. All posts can be viewed from the outside, even by those who are not registered and therefore do not participate in the blockchain movement. By not receiving votes, earnings are zero. By reading the posts freely, they benefit from the content but do not participate in the blockchain. It should be established in what percentage of the accesses to the blockchain posts are made from the "outside", from non-registered users.
I think that the HIVE blockchain should be a closed environment, intended for registered users.
Forcing registration to read means onboarding and having more people vote for witnesses, beneficiaries, supporting developers, trading tokens, increasing the value of HIVE itself.
Your comment is upvoted by @topcomment
You can support the Topcomment initiative by delegating HP
| 10 HP | 25 HP | 50 HP | 100 HP | 250 HP | 500 HP | 1000 HP |
That's an intersting point of view. Thanks for sharing!
You already have exclusive content that you have to pay for (I think InLeo has), games (as you mentioned) that you have to buy a starter pack for, and some apps that you have to pay for (I think there's a plugin for WordPress).
So, I think it's a matter of developers and those who would consume/use it.
I don't mind; if there's something useful, I'll subscribe (like I subscribe to services outside Hive).
But, you have to remember that DHF is for, at least as a first step, if it's possible to do something for the community with support.
You can try - closing your service (The online course, for example); I mean, put it on a subscription (some LEN per week/month or Hive/HBD, it doesn't matter).
I think that it wouldn't be bad if the different apps offered advanced solutions that could provide an income for them. I would like to see an economy where the first way of financement isn't necessary the DHF.
You bring up some very valid points here.
Sustainability is definitely one of the biggest challenges for projects in the blockchain space.
It's true that building something is one thing, but maintaining if long-term, covering costs, and continuously improving it is a whole different story.
Encouraging entrepreneurship and creating a culture where quality work gets rewarded is definitely the way forward.
!PIZZA
!BBH
I think that entrepreneurship and projects that generate profit are the backbone of a healthy ecosystem. I believe that we should favorise everything that goes into this direction.
$PIZZA slices delivered:
@edgerik(3/15) tipped @achim03
@achim03! @edgerik likes your content! so I just sent 1 BBH to your account on behalf of @edgerik. (20/50)
(html comment removed:
)
That is a valid point. At this point, I think most of the free stuff is depending on the DHF and I know there is a lot of disagreement towards how that is distributed. I don't think having some paid features that are blocked off isn't so bad.
If I can get added value for things that I really need, I wouldn't mind paying for it. At the moment, the need of the user is not the first priority of the front-ends so they develop rather what they think is important and it would be good to have a way to incentivise things that people really want. If I build something that people need and I get paid for it, I will try to build more things that people need...
We've all been accustomed to the idea of a free to consume social media and also F2P games. Of course, lots of these ventures are heavily backed by VC money so it's a grow at all costs policy before they even need to think of ways to monetise.
I guess at the end of the day, any product on HIVE has to first be appealing enough to draw a large userbase. That means attracting users from outside of HIVE instead of depending on just leeching whatever free audience available here.
I'd say Splinterlands was and is still the breakout star of HIVE. At it's peak, new users were flooding into the ecosystem without even knowing the existence of the HIVE blockchain it was built on.
I totally agree that Splinterlands was the one app that did many things correctly. They were earning money with people coming to the game. So they attracted more people from outside and it allowed them to earn money, the game to grow and also to hive to grow. If you build an app and you can earn money with it, you will do everything possible to attract as many people to it as possible. With DHF funding, apps on hive don't really have much incentive to bring in new users.