fc-updates

We’re planning to launch a new, optional “Pro” protocol subscription

1. At launch, subscribers will have a Pro badge on their profile

2. Subscription will be onchain and part of the protocol. 100% of the proceeds go to casters / developers in weekly rewards. This in addition to the existing $25K+ a week in rewards. 

3. Planning to add longer casts (10K characters) and up to 4 images per cast for pro subscribers (needs a protocol change). Additional features over time.

4. $120 a year / $10 a month 
Why are we doing this?

- The protocol needs to find long-term revenue source that can continue fund caster and developer rewards beyond any one company.  
- We originally thought storage fees could be that, but we’ve realized that storage fees should be essentialy free to help growth. 
- So we’re trying an opt-in pro subscription as another model

Why now?

- Figuring out a long-term revenue model that works will allow us to double down on investing in growth

Interesting details between the lines:
No one can participate in FC outside the protocol, but the FC app is optional. Part of the turnover must therefore be linked to the protocol.

And more importantly, they seem to be falling for the usual revenue models as we see at X:
- Subscriptions: subscriptions with benefits (e.g. longer casts)
- Advertisements: Some people can pay to boost their cast (might be linked to the app)
- Monetizing data: data is used for the airdrops, not sure if there is non-public data involved. (seems to be linked to protocol and the app)
- Badgification: pro badge coming soon, early Warplet adaptor, the sunsetted powerbadge (but still on the protocol)

Still missing: a badge for verified users (aka you did KYC on them). Could be a pay one a year badge, and could be linked to the protocol.

Interests: crypto, economics, TA & blockchain related innovations | 🔗 https://linktr.ee/cryptonjal 🔗 https://dune.com/nhejyht

It's hard to invent new revenue models, but I think somehow here it's a bit better, because the users are not necessarily the product. Subscription models predate social media also. The real issue is when advertising comes into play. Paying for boosts à la Amps is actually a great idea, but selling personal data from usage and verifications to target advertising is what made Web2 suck

A teller / of stories, that is me. / Curious to learn new ways to see. / Proud dad of two. Now, what / about you? | Builds https://paragraph.xyz/@trpplffct

Great points. And I'm certainly for mixing and matching existing models.

I agree on the airdrops being targeted advertising, but in this case it is about (the idea of) putting value in the wallets of the targeted users, in stead of extracting value from them twice by using data and telling them to buy products/services. I prefer this route, because it brings value back to the users. It is more in line with the core principle of content having value.

It is indeed better here, and it's indeed difficult because non crypto people expect internet services like SM to be free.

Don't think it's necessary to invent new business models, but they could mix old models in new ways. E.g. in addition to subscription also individual sales (like analog newspapers/magazines) by using low fee crypto payments.
Micro payments for extra's could be smart, maybe a little bit like Candycrush 🤔

Not sure if boosted casts is a good idea (same thoughts about Amps tbh), but maybe they could, besides paying for boosting casts, and let other people pay (e.g. $3 or $5 a year) for not receiving boosted casts. Best of both worlds probably.

Don't think that they have to sell the data for targeted advertising. They only have to deliver the ads. Airdrops are imo targeted advertisement, so it's already happening.