Replying to Avatar Guy Swann

Is it just me, or does it seem like everyone is super reluctant to monetize services and relays on #Nostr?

If we can’t make these things sustainable then we will either lose them, or they will stay nothing more than a weird little corner of the internet with lots of hope but no chance of ever scaling.

I still haven’t seen the basic model of zap sharing tried by any major client or relay. But I DO see regularly comments about how expensive relays are. I mean it might not work, but can’t we TRY it?

I want to make the distinction here too that this doesn’t mean we are closing off the network, we are adding permissions to the protocol, this doesn’t suggest at all to used closed source code, we simply need the services necessary to keep this ecosystem robust, to be profitable and have the resources to thrive. If they aren’t, then NONE of this works. Economics is everything.

I know building features is more exciting. I know we all want to make everything that we can free, and I agree all of the *code* should be shared. However, I think there is a natural insecurity (and I say this because I have this problem personally) with charging a fair price, and fearing criticism or the ire of people who believe everything should be free (as in price) when we need things to be free (as in Liberty). They are not the same, and confusing the two could stifle, or drastically slow down, the insane potential of this place.

TL;DR We have GOT to divert some energy to thinking about how to make this ecosystem sustainable, or we will lose it.

(Disclaimer: this isn’t a judgement on whoever is thinking about this problem. It just *seems* like few are. If you are building in this way please share your ideas or what you are trying. I’m extremely interested)

I have been testing a zap-per-feature model where people donate when we release new features. If we don't release anything, "we don't get paid" :)

It's actually not bad, considering how small Nostr is right now.

But I know most people only consider "monetization" if it is recurring an "automated". Which is a very Silicon Valley/Venture Capital way of looking at it.

Nostr companies trying to monetize are doing it in the wrong way: holding keys, closing the code, selling data, attaching paid/closed services with their clients, centralizing caching/relays, putting ads, getting a share of transactions, etc. IMO, those are all terrible ways (incentives are not aligned with users) and only serve to alienate their users against them.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

One question, if someone spends time to make content ( for example, a video) , they would post it on YouTube or Twitter to make money ( ads), they won't put it on Nostr because they don't make money on Nostr. People can zap and tip and donate on Nostr, but it is not much and not make money forever as on youtube because of ads. If there are no ads on nostr, people will make no money, nostr will not attract hundreds and billions people to put Content on nostr. No ads, no money, no users, it is that simple. Money decides everything. But to attract companies to display ads on Nostr, we have bot issues on Nostr, companies don't want bots to view their ads, only humans can buy products. So, to me 2 issues: ability to attract companies to display ads and prevent bots. Solving these 2 issues will scale Nostr.

Makes sense. Which one are you building?