zlacker

It reads to me like:

> "[your subscription fee over my $1 take] gets split evenly between everything you upvote that month."

So if I subscribe and pay $2/month, there's $1/month from me for that, so if I upvote ten things they each get $0.03 from me and if I upvote a ten things a day that's three hundred in a month, they each get $0.0033 from me.

I'm not clear if that covers comments or only top level submissions / posts, but if I comment and get upvoted ten times in a month, presumably I get some money from the upvoters, like $0.03. There are times I've spent well over an hour writing programming comments on Reddit, testing code or trying to explain a concept, things that could have been a blog post. Getting nothing for it is fine, that was the deal. Getting $0.03 for it is more like tipping a waitress a penny, I think. Getting $10 would need into the thousands of votes (which rarely happens on Reddit comments by comparison) and still wouldn't pay for my time wtiting it by minimum wage.

>>jodrel+(OP)
There needs to be a limit on things you can upvote each month based on how much you give as a subscription. Each upvote should be worth at least 1 penny. If you agree to subscribe for $2 a month, that gives you a max of 100 upvotes (1 for each penny over the dollar server costs).

The more you donate, the more upvotes you get ($5 per month would give you 400 votes).

>>jodrel+(OP)
Yeah, I see what you mean, and it's definitely not clear enough to say whether or not this is just for posters or also commenters.

I think this only works if you throttle votes (and assumedly, this only applies to voted on posts, not necessarily every comment), but that was one of the worst parts of Voat (from a technical standpoint, at least). There probably needs to be normal old infinite "I like this" votes and then treat your subscription votes as a form of gilding (except it actually does help pay someone, unlike reddit's gilding).

You can also propose that you do let non-subscribers vote, but a subscriber vote weighs more. Be it explicit* or not.

*(e.g. hover over votes and you see a split of which are "subsciber votes. Which say, counts as 5 votes or something. so A 30 point post with 2 subs votes = 20 normal voters + 2 subs)

>>jodrel+(OP)
Maybe the solution is to weight upvotes by the number of upvotes cast that month in the "subreddit"

If there are 100K upvotes per month in some small city sub, and 100B in the videos sub, getting 1K upvotes in the city sub would would be the equivalent of 1B in the videos sub (in terms of your distribution)

This would encourage people to participate in smaller communities, which could be really nice for keeping the "small town" vibe of early reddit.

>>didget+n7
How much do companies buy upvotes for on Reddit (or on HN?) at present? It would be interesting to compare that figure with any proposed pricing structure.

>>johnny+a8
I would just tell the bottom 95% of people they aren't getting anything at all. There is no point just paying somebody their subscription back. Now if you are posting your art regularly or similar, that's extra money that can go to you.

>>pcthro+zz
That's an interesting idea. It would need some kind of tweaking for low values otherwise it would be exploitable to generate as much revenue from a 10 people sub then from a bigger one.

> This would encourage people to participate in smaller communities, which could be really nice for keeping the "small town" vibe of early reddit.

Couldn't it also cause a fragmentation of content across different same-ish subs ?

>>jodrel+(OP)
Look at it more as a way to offset your subscription cost, not a possible side income. If you're a contributing member you get a content service for near free, with much better quality/spam control than something like Reddit.

>>lozeng+zf1
I'd rather not make it a winner take all arms race. We know that historically leads to sabatoge being the preferred tool of choice.

But sure, maybe it's better to set a floor for monetization, similar to how a YT channel needs 1000 subs to start being monetized. It's not valuable nor enticing for every user who posts something with 10 votes to collect 10 cents. Someone else did mention something about a $50 minimal withdrawal.

>>didget+n7
Idt tying upvotes to money is a good community model at all.

Many of the richest people in the world are also the worst kind of people.

You will not see diverse content being upvoted with this model and you will encourage rampant corruption (ie Trump campaign being upvoted using right wing corporate funds/"donations" to promote it).