Without an explicitly capped profit, I can't see how this doesn't eventually lead to exploitation of the users.
I would like to see a donation/optional subscription model with tiered features as is seen in Patreon/Kickstarter etc. with the distinction that the tiers are community wide instead of being bound to the individuals donating.
Display an income bar. If it drops to zero the servers turn off. If it drops below 1 nobody can post. If it is above 1 you have Direct messaging, above 2 you have more features, etc. Keep the communication clear as to what is being provided and how it is being paid for.
Most people won't pay, but if nobody pays there is no service. Its survival would depend upon providing a service that satisfies enough people to sustain the support. This certainly wouldn't be as lucrative as a exploit the users model, but the idea is not to make a fortune, but to simply run a sustainable enterprise.
Capped profit is interesting since it doesn't limit the business model, just the likelihood of enshitification.
Most people won't pay, but if nobody pays there is no service
Discord has a bit of this. Each 'server' can be 'boosted'. Boosted servers have access to more emoji slots, better audio/video quality for calls, and larger file upload limits.
Can you rephrase this as;
"I'd like to see a model where I can pay a lot, and thus allow 10 other users for free" ?
How about something along the lines of "it costs $10 per useful per month to make the platform sustainable. A subscription is $100. When you subscribe you pay to keep 9 other users on a free account."
In other words, my question is, are upu in the 10% paying for everyone, or are you in the 90% getting it for free?
This is a fairly normal way to run old-style forum hosting - I remember forums that would display a bar for "this month's hosting costs" or a "hosting costs are paid until [date], donate now!"
> Without an explicitly capped profit, I can't see how this doesn't eventually lead to exploitation of the users.
I don't see what difference capped profit would make. Exploitation of users doesn't usually happen during the starry-eyed "this is going to be a billion-dollar company" stage, it happens in the "is there anything we can do to keep the lights on for another few months and maybe turn it around" stage.
IMO the problem isn't investment per se, it's debt, in a broad sense: spending money now that you're expected to repay in the future, and then struggling to repay it. There are bootstraped, sustainable organisations operating in this area similar to what you're asking for, e.g. Dreamwidth. But those are never going to be able to "blitzscale" or market themselves to the same extent; marketing almost by definition involves spending money now that you hope to recoup in the future, at which point you've already sown the seeds of your ruin if that future revenue doesn't materialize.