[a254613e]

Besides being sick of subscriptions for every small thing, I'm not sure I understand the premise here:

"Pay to download or for other services: Not worth it; users can find the software somewhere else and they don't need your other services."

So users won't pay a one-time fee, but instead they will pay a subscription to get that one software they need? They won't "find the software somewhere else" if it's behind a subscription, but will do so if it's behind a single payment?

[robalni]

The thing is that this solution scales better. If you had to pay all developers individually, that would not be worth it but with my solution, you have to pay only one.

Also, it doesn't have to be a subscription. The payment is 100% up to the developers that you pay, so they could sell a one time payment and register a lifetime subscription in this system for that.

[jovial_cavalier]

If I understand correctly, you are not getting one piece of software. You get access to everything in their library, like a spotify subscription. You also choose which developer gets your $5 or whatever, so you retain the meritocratic infrastructure that a traditional marketplace provides.

[NickNaraghi]

Now that you mention it, the spotify subscription is actually very interesting here. A bundled subscription for all the software you use could make sense (though it would probably by 10-100x the cost of a spotify subscription).

However, OP's resource allocation model (each user determines which developer gets their payment) doesn't make sense to me. I think it would be better to prototype multiple resource allocation models in parallel and see which are most fair and sustainable over time.

[raincole]

It won't work.

It's nothing about what it actually does. If your business model:

1. Targets general people, rather than a very specific niche group 2. Requires users to carefully read a paragraph of text to understand the benefits

It just won't work. There is a reason that insurance salemans exist.