Earlier quoted context omitted.
So they lost 300k users and also lost 700k promoters of the service. At the cost of scaled server costs?
With energy prices shooting up, that scanned server cost is more significant now than it used to be, and per-user bandwidth costs don't drop forever due to economies of scale, so there may be more cost efficient promotion methods than 700,000 non-paying users. There was a study a while back (can't find it ATM, I'll have another look later) that suggested those using other people's accounts were more likely to be heav…
Can you explain why? I'd have thought they absolutely do and on top of this their caching strategy becomes even more effective.