I think we saw the obvious conclusion to the idea of "finacializing an audience" in 2021-2022. There were SO many of these. Founders realized that the market for creators who want to do this != 100% of creators (i.e. mrbeast, Nicki Minaj and Taylor Swift all have other, more sustainable, ways to monetize their audience).
I felt like the decentralized/crypto space sped run the non-profit world in that you have a lot of people who care about you and would love to "donate" to you, but after a few times they run out of "support a cause I care about" money, meaning you have to continually get new people into the audience, meaning that your life is about fundraising.
When you think about it pessimistically it's a weird one to say "I 'own' 100k followers and I am going to try to extract as much money from them as possible" which is the incentive you are creating with that model, which again, most creators out side of crypto/decentraland don't think like that.
If you take out the "extract money" bit, then you just have what they already do, which is create things on interesting platforms, which means they don't have a need for a platform that extracts money.
P.S. Also, the point about the creator funds and payouts being small completely misses the point about what these platforms do for creators. They provide distribution. What you do this that distribution is up to you. You can sell chocolate, you can make 4 billion dollars on concert tours, you can create a brand called skims that is valued at 4 billions dollars, you can create a VC fund, etc.
Gating that just reduces monetization potential, which is why Facebook doesn't have a paywall. Everything else is niche and you can create fine businesses there, i.e. Patreon, but nothing huge.
Comments
I think we saw the obvious conclusion to the idea of "finacializing an audience" in 2021-2022. There were SO many of these. Founders realized that the market for creators who want to do this != 100% of creators (i.e. mrbeast, Nicki Minaj and Taylor Swift all have other, more sustainable, ways to monetize their audience).
I felt like the decentralized/crypto space sped run the non-profit world in that you have a lot of people who care about you and would love to "donate" to you, but after a few times they run out of "support a cause I care about" money, meaning you have to continually get new people into the audience, meaning that your life is about fundraising.
When you think about it pessimistically it's a weird one to say "I 'own' 100k followers and I am going to try to extract as much money from them as possible" which is the incentive you are creating with that model, which again, most creators out side of crypto/decentraland don't think like that.
If you take out the "extract money" bit, then you just have what they already do, which is create things on interesting platforms, which means they don't have a need for a platform that extracts money.
P.S. Also, the point about the creator funds and payouts being small completely misses the point about what these platforms do for creators. They provide distribution. What you do this that distribution is up to you. You can sell chocolate, you can make 4 billion dollars on concert tours, you can create a brand called skims that is valued at 4 billions dollars, you can create a VC fund, etc. Gating that just reduces monetization potential, which is why Facebook doesn't have a paywall. Everything else is niche and you can create fine businesses there, i.e. Patreon, but nothing huge.