zlacker

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)

>>johnny+(OP)
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.

>>lozeng+p71
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.