Assuming that the majority of users will not host their own nodes, what do you think is their preferred way to 'pay' for a wallet's development and operational expenses?
Subscription plans22.7%
Transaction fees77.3%
44 votes \ poll ended
pull down to refresh
239 sats \ 5 replies \ @TheBTCManual 20 Aug 2023
Why not both? Freemium users can pay a certain fee per transaction while subs can skip the fee and also get access to other features the wallet provides, the fee structure can also act as a method of churning users into subscribers as they become a heavy user of the wallet.
reply
100 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b 20 Aug 2023
Nailed it. A lot of the ride sharing and food delivery apps in the US use this model. It's a goldilocks payment model imo.
They'll often offer promotions to switch to the subscription model because it's better for them in the long run, but it's optional.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @smartvaults OP 20 Aug 2023
What do you think is a reasonable transaction fee or subscription plan? 0.1% transaction fee or 100k sats per year subscription? What would users pay for a 'perfect' experience? 🤔
reply
160 sats \ 0 replies \ @TheBTCManual 20 Aug 2023
That's a tough one,
If a 0.1% transaction fee is your base then the average user would need to turn over 1 BTC worth of transactions per year to justify the subscription fee, not much of an incentive but if you have a user base that is constantly making transactions then it makes sense or if there's added value/features accesses in the subscription make it more enticing
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @smartvaults OP 20 Aug 2023
I think this is how DoorDash and InstaCart premium subscriptions work. Paying the subscription reduces or eliminates the per transaction fee.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @TheBTCManual 20 Aug 2023
They've started to roll it out here in South Africa too, UberOne is advertising everywhere, what also makes this model successful is the physical constraints of the service, the subscription can pay for itself if you use Uber for example during peak hours and avoid those surge charges
I think a model like this could work for additional services like CoinJoins, atomic swaps, or submarine swaps that wallets provide, so you put them in a priority queue with subs first and highest bidding non-subs after
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @benthecarman 20 Aug 2023
The problem with subscription plans is that if it is an iPhone app, the subscription must be done through apple pay and in fiat.
reply
5 sats \ 1 reply \ @TonyGiorgio 20 Aug 2023
There's a bit of a dichotomy with the transaction based approach. The wallet will need to both be aware of every single transaction the users make and need to restrict functionality to be dependent upon the third party. There can also other things that aren't dependent upon transactions.
Some of these reasons is why Mutiny offers a subscription. Right now it's strictly for donation but in the future it'll have features you don't get elsewhere in addition to hopefully offering one or two free lightning channel opens for paying users.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @smartvaults OP 20 Aug 2023
Would you consider adjusting the 'recommended' donation amount based on usage or even feature(s) subscribed? Privacy issues aside, it seems like aligning costs to usage would be fair.
reply
1 sat \ 0 replies \ @elvismercury 20 Aug 2023
I think we haven't even begun to see the business models around this stuff. Whatever is going on ten years from now around incentivizing wallet development will make people of today look like chimps prodding the obelisk.
Wouldn't be surprised if the idea of "wallet" disappeared entirely. The metaphor was always questionable, imo.
reply
1 sat \ 0 replies \ @davidw 20 Aug 2023
Pre-paid subscriptions (no auto-renew)
reply
1 sat \ 3 replies \ @carlosfandango 20 Aug 2023
Paying for the service they use would suit most users I suspect. Subscription is preferable for developers.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @smartvaults OP 20 Aug 2023
Why is a subscription preferable to developers?
I imagine that a transaction fee model would incentivize developers to encourage more volume vs just saving.
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b 20 Aug 2023
Consistent revenue.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @carlosfandango 20 Aug 2023
The same reason any subscription model proves popular; regular, predictable income. @theBTCmanual certainly has the right idea about combining though.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @shyfire 21 Aug 2023
I can think of some other options, such as selling the app in the app store for a one-off sum
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @JesseJames 20 Aug 2023
Use both, let people choose
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @skreep_ 20 Aug 2023
When y'all are talking about paying for a subscription plan instead of a transaction fee, are you talking about literally transacting on-chain without paying for block space required to include your transaction and instead paying a wallet service to allow you to freely do this as much as you want provided you paid the wallet service a subscription fee?
Because I really hope this isn't what we're talking about, else I'm a have to open up a can of whoop ass in here.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @faithandcredit 20 Aug 2023
Í would think transaction fees because if you have a subscription you might have to feel you have to do a certain number of transactions every month otherwise you are losing money or something. But that doesent mean people arent going to sign up for a subscription. There could be additional benefits if you do.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 20 Aug 2023
wallet is not a node. And a node is not a wallet.
Also you have your own node on your mobile device.
Soon users will not even differentiate if they run a node or not.
https://darthcoin.substack.com/p/private-lightning-nodes
reply