[petard]

I'm baffled how tech-savvy people like the author are surprised when a seemingly free product suddenly introduce ways to monetize its service. There is no free lunch or to put it in another way, if you're not paying for the product, you are the product.

[vitno]

I'm baffled how people assume this is monetization.

Signal has been a nonprofit for years and has no money issues: https://signalfoundation.org. The organization has no formal ties to the alt-coin, although Moxie does. It doesn't monetize the Signal foundation.

I'm very unhappy with this, but it's not a monetization scheme.

[helen___keller]

> Signal has been a nonprofit for years and has no money issues: https://signalfoundation.org. The organization has no formal ties to the alt-coin, although Moxie does. It doesn't monetize the Signal foundation.

Even worse, in my opinion. If a nonprofit running a useful encrypted app was trying to fund itself by shilling some altcoin, I wouldn't be happy but I would be understanding.

If the lead of the project is inserting the altcoin for personal enrichment at the cost of the nonprofit and the useful project, that's pure and simple corruption. As far as I can tell, no good is coming of this (I mean, unless you're interested in actually using Mobilecoin, of course. Personally I have no interest in doing so, and if my Signal contacts wanted to send me money I'd say to use Venmo instead).

[marcusverus]

So, signal is all about privacy, but when they chose a cryptocurrency, they didn't chose based on privacy. If privacy was the point, why not choose Monero, a mainstream coin which already has a reputation for privacy? So, if privacy wasn't their main concern in choosing a cryptocurrency, it's perfectly reasonable to wonder what was their main concern. And given that MOB's only unique characteristic (as far as I can tell) is the deep pockets of their foundation (because they allegedly own ~85% of MOB tokens, worth Billions), it's not much of a stretch to assume that those deep pockets are the reason that MOB was selected.

For a crass comparison, let's say you've got a friend named Bob. Bob likes blondes. He loves 'em. He's always talking about how he loves the blondes and could never be with a brunette or a redhead. One day you bump into Bob, and he tells you that he has just married a bald chick, who just happens to be very wealthy. How strange, that this guy, who always harped on this one feature, suddenly made a decision that was not based on that feature at all! Clearly, some other feature was the driver of his decision. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that Bob is a gold digger. But wouldn't you wonder?

[dbrgn]

MobileCoin was advised by Moxie, Signal integrates MobileCoin and the footer at https://www.mobilecoin.com/ states "MobileCoin uses and recommends Signal Private Messenger". There certainly seems to be a link, and I would be hugely surprised if the Signal foundation doesn't have some stake in these MOB tokens.

[verytrivial]

> The organization has no formal ties to the alt-coin, although Moxie does.

I've tried to rephrase this few times, because it seems too obvious to state, but isn't it a bad thing that a technical "lead" on an app is very likely going to personally benefit from some other technology being shoe-horned into that app?

It's his (and the Foundation's) baby, so he of course can, but I can't help but feel like this unholy but super convenient marriage will harm the reputation of Signal and MobileCoin. They could both sink or swim based upon the perception of the other.

Sorry if this is obvious. It feels like I'm taking crazy pills.

[KingOfCoders]

"I'm very unhappy with this, but it's not a monetization scheme."

It's not for Signal, it's a monetization scheme for Moxie.

[jeltz]

Indeed, it is not monetization it is corruption and embezzlement. Moxie uses his role in a foundation to make himself and his buddies rich.

[verytrivial]

Let me try to de-baffle you -- it is the shitcoin-oh-god-yet-another-ICO aspect, not the monetize-aspect which is causing friction.

If Signal switched to a 'Lite' vs 'Pro' model, or other incremental features, or had more donation related nagging, I doubt it would raise the slightest bother.

Many people switched from other messaging apps on princple, much of that signalled (pun intended) by actions of the founders. This moves seems to be incompatible with many people's principles.

[orangeoxidation]

Yup. Before WhatsApp was bought by facebook they just charged people. This was fine and seemed fair. Same with 'pro features' or such.

The crypto scheme however does not seem like a fair deal. It looks like monetizing through a backdoor under false pretenses. Exploiting the unsavvy rather than dealing in good faith.

This is especially bad as signal was 'the app we trust' for many of us.

[gm3dmo]

Free? I pay the Signal Foundation $3 per month.

[duxup]

There's very much a horrible system right now with of all these free services creating demand free only services at the expense of any possibility of paying for it ... and then we get upset when they scramble to pay for things in other ways.

Personally I'd like to pay for things (would like a system to manage it)...

[throwaway4good]

Yes. This is the sad truth.

Cryptocurrency is about network effects; more users, more value^2.

Today it is really the way to monetize a large collection of users, whereas it in the past perhaps was advertisement.

Perhaps it should be illegal in the same way a chain letter or pyramid scheme is illegal. However right now it is not.