Content
@
https://warpcast.com/~/channel/fc-updates
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
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
299 replies
503 recasts
2002 reactions
chinmay.eth
@chinmay.eth
Worth experimenting but the revenue is not going to be substantial... for now. Why not just charge 20%-30% fees in airdrops, paid in USDC? Airdrop = marketing budget. It's the same as ad revenue.
1 reply
0 recast
5 reactions
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
Airdrops already go 100% to users
2 replies
0 recast
11 reactions
chinmay.eth
@chinmay.eth
Of course. I'm suggesting to charge +30% to the projects. Call it the "distribution fees" to use * distribution and analytics tools * notification service * Etc... If I was a new project planning to spend $100 in airdrops, I don't mind paying $30 distribution fees.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
That’s just doing a bigger airdrop?
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
chinmay.eth
@chinmay.eth
You can label it however you want. I'm just suggesting a new revenue model that is very much comparable to and scalable like web2 socials
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
ciefa 🐌 eth/acc
@ciefa.eth
You realize the revenue does not go to Merkle? If you would do that, the airdrop literally would just be bigger for users..
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
chinmay.eth
@chinmay.eth
Revenue does not go to Merkle <--- problem. Taking a cut from the airdrop <--- solution.
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
ciefa 🐌 eth/acc
@ciefa.eth
Dwr said the goal is revenue for the protocol. I dont think Merkle not making (much?) revenue yet is a problem. Merkle focusing on the Protocol's growth like this is insanely based and good for us users.
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
chinmay.eth
@chinmay.eth
https://warpcast.com/chinmay.eth/0x03ca37aa It does not matter which entity makes money. That's an accounting problem. The goal is to; - find a repeatable, sustainable, and scalable revenue model. - increase growth spending for that model.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
