Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Patreon cuts deep inside creators’ pockets

thoughts.jatan.space

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 351 posts

Re: Patreon cuts deep inside creators’ pockets

#261

Post by permo-w »

acchow wrote: post #250
e-clinton wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason to have fees as a percentage vs a flat fee isn’t because costs scale with payment amounts, it’s because it’s a more fair way to levy fees. I can either charge everyone $3/transaction, even if the transaction itself is less than or equal to $3, or I can structure it as a percentage to encourage smaller transactions. If people think Patreon is making a killing with their fee structure, they should build a co…

How are you defining "more fair"? By having the larger transactions subsidize the smaller transactions, how is that "more fair"?

fair is the wrong word. it's certainly more practical

Re: Patreon cuts deep inside creators’ pockets

#262

Post by sokoloff »

abnercoimbre wrote: post #214
sokoloff wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I poked at your site's donation functions. For me personally, if I was doing a one-time donation, that flow seems fine and something that wouldn't block me for a one-time. For a recurring donation, the hover over "A donor account is created automatically for recurring donations. Account setup info will be emailed to you." would remind me the hassle of using a random extra account that I need to keep track of, trust t…

Thanks for the feedback. Indeed I'm not capturing the supporters with your concerns. However, I get immediate cash access to a donation (recurring or otherwise), and almost everyone covers the transaction fee. This feels less centralized and gimicky than Patreon -- at the cost of losing sokoloff.

You could A/B test showing Patreon to a subset of your users (or in different positions) and see if Patreon gives you enough incremental lift to cover their higher vig.

It’s not about sokoloff. It’s about what gives your group the most net income after all fees and factors.

Re: Patreon cuts deep inside creators’ pockets

#264

Post by aahortwwy »

meowkit wrote: post #255
Jakawao wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn’t address the criticism. If I pay for a good or service via crypto and it is not delivered satisfactorily, what is my remedy? Who even decides what “satisfaction” is? Yes, the dispute/chargeback process for cards is cumbersome today, but it is a solution - albeit inefficient. What is the crypto answer? I don’t mean to put you on the spot for this question, but I would love to understand how decentralized s…

> If I pay for a good or service via crypto and it is not delivered satisfactorily In this vague hypothetical situation, what a lot of crypto folk would tell you is that you should use a smart contract, and not a regular transaction, to pay. Hypothetically the contract/network will act as an escrow agent, and would only complete the transaction when all input parameters are true AKA all parties are "satisfied". The s…

Sounds like a lot of work. I'd rather pay someone to do it for me.

Re: Patreon cuts deep inside creators’ pockets

#265

Post by rglullis »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #254
rglullis wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The payment was final. The purchase was not. The refund is another payment. "But the state can still compel you to pay back". Yes, sure it does. The point is that the cost of doing it now is much higher and it is enough to deter a lot of opportunistic, fraudulent behavior from consumers. This difference in cost can make or break a business.

It also encourages a lot of opportunistic, fraudulent behaviour from merchants, because the cost of perpetrating fraud is lowered. So you end up with a system that most people won't touch, and only appeals to users who need to make shady transactions. In which case they may just as well leave out the middle merchant and exchange crypto directly.

> So you end up with a system that most people won't touch, and only appeals to users who need to make shady transactions.

It can also appeal to applications where payers and payees have some sort of social capital at stake. Patreon is the perfect example for that. If Patreon could offer the possibility of making payments via crypto with reduced fees, don't you think that people would do it?

It also can appeal for the use cases where the value of the transaction is too low for payers to worry about the "insurance" provided by the credit card networks, but that merchants need to be protected. E.g, selling digital goods online. Imagine you want to sell a book online and charge $2. With crypto would be easy. With a credit card, not so much.

Finally, it also would make sense for transactions where people would rather risk losing the money over their privacy. E.g, if Ashley Madison had a crypto option, how many of its users would use it just to be sure that their names would never end up on a list?

Re: Patreon cuts deep inside creators’ pockets

#266

Post by aahortwwy »

rglullis wrote: post #157
rollcat wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Crypto is meant to be an alternative for the cases where the cost of existing processors make the transaction not viable. Allow me to quote myself: using proof of work in place of CC processor fees is just moving the problem around - and arguably, making it worse: you're essentially taking on environmental debt, which all of us will eventually have to pay down.

Ethereum is moving to PoS in less than two months. Can we please drop this BS excuse of an argument? (Before you reply with the usual "Ethereum devs have been promising PoS for years" line, I will tell you this: I pledge to drop all work on Hub20 if Ethereum doesn't complete the transition by the end of the year.)

> I pledge to drop all work on Hub20 if Ethereum doesn't complete the transition by the end of the year.

Why not two months from now? That's when they'll be done, right?

Re: Patreon cuts deep inside creators’ pockets

#267

Post by munificent »

rglullis wrote: post #156
munificent wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it eliminates the chance of fraud Declaring a priori that all transactions are legitimate doesn't eliminate fraud, it just eliminates the system's ability to handle it. Actual humans can still get victimized. The gateway just says "Lalala can't hear you not my problem." > and it moves the cost of customer support to the merchant. Likewise, it moves the consequences of fraud onto the victim. > for the cases where th…

You are thinking only from the side of a customer, who already has it easy with the existing payment networks. If you are a customer that wants to make a transaction that can be reversed, you go for the credit card. If the value of the transaction is not high enough for you to care (micropayments) or if you rather lose some money but not give away your data, you go for crypto. The problem that crypto can solve is for…

> You are thinking only from the side of a customer, who already has it easy with the existing payment networks.

Merchants factor processing fees in when determining pricing which means the cost ultimately gets passed on to the customer. The merchant would of course like lower transaction fees.

But legitimate merchants also want to comply with consumer protection laws and have happy customers even when unpleasant things like mistaken charges, stolen credentials, etc. happen. There is a real value provided to both buyers and sellers when transactions are regulated and reversible. The payment processor's fee is the cost of that value.

Now, it may be that payment processing is a horrendously inefficient market and the processing fees are much higher than they need to be given the value they provide because of lack of market competition.

However, your product does not appear to compete with other payment processors, because it offers little of the value that they provide.

> The problem that crypto can solve is for the merchants, like TFA. Patreon charges absurd rates because payers are problematic.

Yes, and your product doesn't charge those rates... but nor does it make payers any less problematic. Fraud still happens. People still get their identity stolen, or have their kids grab the phone and buy $10,000 in Robux. It's just that with your product, merchants don't have to care.

You have to wonder what kind of merchants would consider that system a significant win. This sounds like tour company buying a passenger bus and choosing the cheapest bus with no seatbelts or a roof. Hey, it saves them money! But, you know, it's not the best deal for the passengers.

Re: Patreon cuts deep inside creators’ pockets

#269

Post by rglullis »

aahortwwy wrote: post #266
rglullis wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ethereum is moving to PoS in less than two months. Can we please drop this BS excuse of an argument? (Before you reply with the usual "Ethereum devs have been promising PoS for years" line, I will tell you this: I pledge to drop all work on Hub20 if Ethereum doesn't complete the transition by the end of the year.)

> I pledge to drop all work on Hub20 if Ethereum doesn't complete the transition by the end of the year. Why not two months from now? That's when they'll be done, right?

> That's when they'll be done, right?

If everything goes well and according to plan, yes. But I am not going to make harsh decisions based on best-case scenarios.

Re: Patreon cuts deep inside creators’ pockets

#270

Post by rglullis »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #256
rglullis wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

3Dsecure helps against criminals try to use the card and makes it harder for customers flag a transaction if they have provided the authorization code. It helps, but does not prevent chargebacks. If you are selling digital goods, a malicious customer could, e.g, make the payment, access the download page of the product and then file a chargeback saying the received product does not match what was advertised.

Many digital merchants in the EU have a rights waiver box to eliminate this kind of opportunism.

There is a whole other world of people who do not live in the EU.
Post reply on HN