pull down to refresh

Lot to breakdown here,
What was not viable in the 1990s, nor at any time since then, was something like micro-transactions for content. One obvious problem is that the fee structure of credit cards don’t allow for very small transactions; another problem is that the costs to product content are front-loaded, and the potential payoff is both back-loaded and unpredictable, making it impossible to make a living. The biggest problem of all, however, is that micro-transactions are anti-human: forcing a potential content consumer to continually decide on whether or not to pay for a piece of content is alienating, particularly when plenty of alternatives for their scarce attention exist.
He also believes in a stablecoin micro-transaction future :(
Stablecoins solve several of the micro-transaction problems I listed above, including dramatically lower — or no — fees, and the fact that they are infinitely divisible, and thus can scale to very small amounts. Stablecoins, by virtue of being programmable, are also well-suited to agents; agents, meanwhile, are much more suited to micro-transactions, because they are, in the end, simply software making a decision, unencumbered by the very human feeling of decision paralysis.
Oof what a miss, ask any spotify artist how they feel about that :(
Still a fascinating read, with some keen insights
I suppose this is a predictable take from Silicon Valley, and it's interesting to see how they argue for a payments world where they can position themselves to take a cut. I think he's wrong on almost every point here so let me expand:
  • There's nothing Lightning and Ecash can't do that Stablecoins can: programmable, instant, micro. Stablecoins are less private, and they're not even stable--they're defined by a fiat currency that loses value. They also perpetuate a model where your online activity can be tracked and resold in a data market.
  • The advertising model wasn't a sin because it enabled commerce, it was a sin because it enabled surveillance-as-a-market and behavior modification at large scale, as a foundational primitive of the Web. Its externalities are the problem.
  • The idea that advertising is a "micro-transaction in the background" is laughable: you had to invent a market to price "impressions" and "views" of content. You will be shocked to hear that this market is rife with fraud, as is the adjacent online survey market. There is no way to accurately price content if you're pricing it off metadata about the users that read it. A market requires the price to be "discovered" and the way to do that is to let users pay for stuff.
  • Debatable, but I've never experienced the claim that micro-transactions put too much burden on the user, and therefore subscriptions make more sense. I don't want to subscribe to your newsletter and be wed to a recurring contract to subsidize your writing, and then read it to feel like I'm getting value. For some writers I would, but not most. I would instead happily pay you micro transactions to read individual articles when I fancy.
Overall I think this is some extensive mental gymnastics to hold on to a Silicon Valley model that will soon be obsolete. GLHF.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Car OP 11h
Ben is not from Silicon Valley btw, but a very deep thinker.
I think the more interesting piece to all this was the misunderstanding of currency devaluation it was quite remarkable how that flew right past him. Most people outside of our sphere do not understand sound money and by the looks of it we have a long way to go.
reply
ah thanks -- brain shortcut to the other ben (horowitz)
reply