Let's talk about value4value and zaps.

Let's start with the fact that I love the idea and have been promoting it - both in podcasts and here on Nostr. I've written about it in my book Cryptocurrencies - Hack your way to a better life (the particular chapter is published as a blog below).

What is missing is the understanding of magnitude. When people say "people could make living by creating content and receiving zaps and boosts", we are missing one important aspect. Yes, technically, this is possible. In reality, quantity is important.

I'll start with a story from Paralelní Polis - Institute of Cryptoanarchy. The place literally made millionaires. We've been talking about Bitcoin for 10 years. Doing Bitcoin meetups, most of them for free. We had stickers with address for donation. People were coming, learning, buying BTC. One of our co-founders was asking people if they got some value and donated (more on the problematic use of this word below). Again, these were people that maybe doubled their wealth... Once, the answer was "I bought a 'club mate' to support you". So the founder ran a calculator app on their phone. It went something like this: A club mate costs 3$. Our margin is 20% (and that's gross margin), so $0.6. Rent of this place, with energies is let's say $100 for the meetup. There are people at the bar, someone doing the talk and few people helping to onboard people. So that's let's say $200 in wages. Not even saying that we pay rent and people to create these events, promote them, so people know about them. Let's say a real cost of the event is around $500 (very conservative estimate). So that would mean people would have to buy 833 club mates just for break-even. Do you think this math works?

While we _technically_ could be financed from people (the QR codes worked), people chose to drink sweet mate drink and thought they were supporting content creators.

I think this is the same case with Nostr zaps and value4value. Let's start with podcast. Studio rent - $100 per hour. So for 2 hour podcast, you need 3 hours: $300. You need some hardware, let's say capital is $30 per episode. The podcaster needs to film it (3 hours), edit, upload and promote it (let's say 2 hours). 5 hours at $50/hour = $250. So a single podcast episode is $550. A 5000 sat boost is $1.3 now. So you need 423 boosts just to break even.

Is it technically possible to get 423 boosts of 5000 sats on your podcast? Of course. Does it happen? Not much. Most listeners don't even know how to boost. So unless you do a Bitcoin-focused podcast, or have a specific audience, you are unlikely to break-even. (if people stream 100sats/min, then for 2 hour podcasts, you need 174 people streaming the whole podcast).

Let's talk about blogs. I won't bother you with math, but writing an article takes time. Then you need to create images, promote it, ...

If we want to move away from advertising, for both podcasts and text content, the technology is here. But it's unlikely to work in practice any time soon.

How do people make money now? They share a referral link to some product or service (unfortunately, very often some KYC bullshit). It gives listeners discount and the content creator 10%-20% of the value. If the product is $100 value, it's $10 per purchase. Will 55 people buy to cover the cost? Not so easy, but if you have a few thousands listeners, it is not unlikely.

If the product is yours, it is just a marketing strategy. I get more than 10% if I sell my book or course, there are still costs, but that's the way to support it.

I am not complaining - we have complete control in what we produce, how we share it and what our business model is. What I am saying, that 100-1000 sat zaps is not "paying for content creators", at least not anytime soon. I still love the feature, it creates a flow of value, is a form of feedback and it's beautiful. So keep zapping. But when you get value from some content, don't fool yourself that your $0.2 is "paying for the value".

What about the donations? Roy from Breez said something really nice at BTCPrague - don't ask for donation, because you will get a donation. If the blog post / podcast gives you $10 in value, give $10. Ask for people to add a price tag to the value people received and pay that. What was the value of learning about Bitcoin in Paralelni Polis and doubling your wealth? I can tell you what it's not - drinking a club mate. Plus it has tons of sugar.

https://juraj.bednar.io/en/blog-en/2021/06/14/financing-content-creators-and-pocasting-2-0/

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Are you familiar with nostr:npub13ql75nq8rldygpkjke47y893akh5tglqtqzs6cspancaxktthsusvfqcg7‘s thoughts on this?

Great note Juraj. I like the way you've tried to break down the math very well and in a simple manner.

I think the power of Nostr is that it’s both, a public square and a market place. Ultimately IP, goods and services need to be traded here and the market will price things. That’s in addition of the public square function.

How exchange happens has huge implications for "market pricing things". See my other reply. I can sell content for $100 to one person, but I will never get $100 in zaps for the same thing from one person.

So how the market prices things happens, even when the content is the same.

Agree, if you post content before agreeing on price it’s quasi free. The thing with opinions, editorials and thesis, or even how to videos, is, everyone has one, they are relatively easy to do. In a public square you exchange ideas. For free. Very powerful. In a market place for IP, goods and services, you exchange value after you agree on the value.

To be clear, I am not complaining. I am primarily a content creator and I can make decent living out of it. But it's not from zaps or value4value.

I am pointing out that how you sell your content matters, not only what is the value of the content.

I don't currently have a suggestion for a solution. I just wanted to point out that repeating a mantra "people could live off their content from zaps" misses important context - it is technically possible to earn money through zaps, but in practice it won't pay your rent unless you are super popular. And if you are super popular ("Harry Potter"), probably other earning avenues will make you two orders of magnitude more in income than zaps.

Totally agree with you.. Testing another client and it's a weird behaviour. I zapped you but its not visible (even though it was a public zap with a comment)but left from the wallet. Weird.

It went through, although I can see the comment only in weird JSON in my node. Maybe if I used Alby, I would see it on a nice dashboard, but own btcpayserver is own btcpayserver.

I think zap not being seen is a problem on my side, not yours, although I am not sure.

OK thanks for letting me know. I will test it too where is the glitch. I am not that sure it is only on your side.

I fully understand what you're writing about. V4V is not a principle that will provide a livelihood for content creators today. Rather, it is a principle that highlights the fact that content is often not for free to create. People need to learn to pay for valuable content, which realistically means learning to recognize its value compared to what they are already paying for today. That takes time, and from that perspective, even 21 Sats is a positive promise for the future.

Thanks for your post, which helps people put zapping into a real context.

Agreed, and I love the idea of Zaps.

Maybe another story would be interesting. 10 years ago in an art group, me and nostr:npub15xkpvjux5fw2q0kgl8m9c6pv0wu5urgctq9tthftmu559lf4wxqqknkrnh were talking about Bitcoin being a building block of a parallel financial system. Cryptoanarchy was inevitable. The other members of the group said: "Cool, but let's try it in practice" and we started Paralelní Polis (with the first Bitcoin Coffee - the whole place was Bitcoin only).

Suffice to say Bitcoin was far from a parallel financial system, although we had everything needed back then - qr codes, some exchanges and later some ATMs. What was missing was the network effect.

With Bitcoin, we are getting closer to a parallel financial system, but I think another 10x of the network effect would be required.

Nostr is there. It's new, cool, with very low network effect. So in theory, it could work, if the network grows to a critical mass that would sustain content creators.

What do you think of the zapping on Nostr? Do you use zaps as a way of expressing agreement with the opinion presented? Or do you actually appreciate the value of the post? Is zapping a consequence of being a bitcoiner? Or did you discover bitcoin because of v4v?

nostr:note1v4lnrzj6u8uv39my03ryyjnks3mh47s0e7hpmxuc0u9wunxz5htsnr49fn

I wonder where do you see the root cause.

Is it good ol' simple greed?

Or is it that people are so used to pay enormous taxes so that they are left with much less money to give away as well as the mentality that they are entitled to have some stuff "for free".

You seem to have some very unrealistic expectations on what people should be paying for content. For comparison, consider the current mainstream model of advertising supported media. Advertising is sold through a variety of schemes these days. The most useful for this comparison is called CPM. CPM is 'cost per mille,' or cost per *thousand* impressions. It ranges anywhere from $0.24 - $10 depending on the media, target audience, advertising market, etc. A CPM of $5 is a pretty good (if somewhat arbitrary) starting point. At $5 CPM, a media publisher will get around $0.005 ( half of a cent) per impression. Most media will have several adds, so if we assume 4 adds per publication, that gives us a value of around $0.02 per viewer. Everyone won't zap, and I don't know the numbers, but we'll assume 20% until someone who tracks it corrects us. This means that you should ask for zaps of $0.10 (around 380 sats) to replace an add revenue of $4 CPM.

TL;DR - you can really only expect a value of a couple of cents per viewer. You will need a following of 10-100k to make a living creating high quality content.

Ad revenue is not a good indicator I believe.

Ads are expensive for most advertisers (when you calculate cost per acquisition) and cheap for most content creators. The main reason is there is too much advertisement trying to catch attention, so it is race to the top for the advertisers, but actually not much is sold.

Ads as a revenue model works for the top mass-market creators (think pop stars), it usually does not even cover the costs of (online) magazines.

Most content creators actually make money by either affiliate programs that can be targeted better (but not always - for example the endless VPN ads in podcasts), or by selling the content directly.

I don't think it makes sense to compare ad revenue to zaps as the only thing, because that is not how most content creators actually make money. Ads sell attention (in somehow unrelated way to the content), while zaps should capture the value created by the content itself.

If I create interesting content and get paid for showing you an ad for hair shampoo, it is not related to the content. The point of value4value is to value the content itself, not your attention around the content.

So I would personally rather compare zaps to how you can monetize content and not how people monetize attention, which sounds similar, but it's actually a very different business proposition.

I might be wrong, but I think most Youtubers survived off of Youtube adds up until a few years ago. I noticed many of them complaining that Youtube reduced their cut of ad revenues and noticed a huge uptick in sponsored videos and referrals and direct product sales around the same time. If you remove the platform's cut of ad revenue, content creaters would do much better on Youtube ( I think it's around 50%).

Anyway, the CPM model can be applied to any existing content business model. You just divide total revenue by total views/subs/whatever to figure out your CPM, the work out how many people actually zap you to find out how much you need per zap.

After re-reading your posts, I think we are saying the same things in different ways.

#[2]​ please summarize this

The author argues that the current model of funding content creators through donations and tips is not sustainable and that a more scalable model is needed. They suggest that content creators should be able to monetize their work by selling access to exclusive content, merchandise, and experiences. The author also proposes a new model of podcasting that focuses on high-quality audio production and marketing,

please continue

#[2]​ please continue

The author suggests that content creators should be able to monetize their work by selling access to exclusive content, merchandise, and experiences. They propose a new model of podcasting that focuses on high-quality audio production and marketing.