Hate to say it, because BlueSky had (still has) promise:
There is no reason to believe that its owners/investors -- now prominently including cryptocurrency bros -- will resist the opportunity to meddle and/or cash in, especially now that there's been such a surge in the user base.
And when/if they do, a genuinely open and decentralized alternative to Big Network (Twitter, Facebook, etc.) will still be -- with the current exception of the fediverse -- a mirage.
@dangillmor I generally agree. I figure they’re looking to 10x that $15M, and I can’t see them doing it with subscriptions for custom avatars, colored themes, or HD video
So how will it make money?
@peterbutler @dangillmor I wonder how Bluesky will make money as well.
Charging for premium posting features is not sustainable because you would be charging your best users - content creators.
I like what Twitch is doing with premium subscriptions - the viewers are paying Twitch to support their favorite creators and Twitch gets a cut.
Imagine paying $5/month on Bluesky and at the end of each month 70% of it gets distributed to the authors of posts that you 'liked' and 30% goes to Bluesky.
@mmasnick that's great to hear!
Another idea to consider: if as a user I get some revenue share but it's not worth it for me to cash out those $0.37 - give me an option to pass it on to authors I liked.
I hope the team is also thinking through the unintended consequences of such an incentive system. For example, would it incentivize "like farming" kind of content? Or would it make people post the same content as their own post instead of reposting someone else's post to claim the authorship?
Dan Gillmor
Peter Butler
lonk
Mike Masnick ✅