[robalni]

> If I'm a developer and get to chose what to charge, that means I can ask people for $0.01, and they would get access to everything from all developers of this "platform"?

You can do that but you will not make a lot of money that way. The number of subscriptions you can sell is limited so if you sell all of them for $0.01 you will probably wish you had asked for more and when you have sold out, only the more expensive subscriptions sold by other developers remain and they will make more money than you.

> The example on [0] where a developer pays credits when they get a subscriber is confusing. Should Devs "top up" somehow?

I don't know exactly what you mean by "top up" but the credits are turned into subscriptions when sold. This is how we make sure the developers can't sell infinite subscriptions. The plan is then that with time, the developers will get more credits so that they can sell more subscriptions. How fast they will get more could depend on the current value of their account, where the value could be calculated from the credits and the number of subscribers they have.

[AnthonyMouse]

> How fast they will get more could depend on the current value of their account, where the value could be calculated from the credits and the number of subscribers they have.

So are you then implicitly setting the price yourself because anyone who doesn't charge enough can't get more credits?

Suppose someone develops an app which takes hardly any effort to make -- it's a hundred lines of code -- but it does something common that everybody needs so if available for $0.01 it would have a hundred million users. Which would gross a million dollars and more than pay for the development of the simple app, so the developer is satisfied with that. But to do that you'd have to let them sell a hundred million subscriptions for $0.01 each.

Now let's go toward the other end of the spectrum. Some app which is specialized and requires a million dollars of developer time but only has a market of 10,000 customers. Those customers would pay $100 each for it, if they had to, but not if they can buy into the system somewhere else for $10 (or $0.01) instead.

In general, who is going to buy a fungible subscription for significantly more than it's available somewhere else? How do you handle the fact that the development cost of a thing isn't proportional to the number of people who use it?

[robalni]

> So are you then implicitly setting the price yourself because anyone who doesn't charge enough can't get more credits?

Everyone can get more credits. The idea is that when we think we need more subscriptions to sell, every developer would get a number of additional credits that is proportional to the number of credits they have (with active subscriptions converted to credits for the calculation).

> But to do that you'd have to let them sell a hundred million subscriptions for $0.01 each.

That would be very difficult for them to do since the number of subscirptions they can sell is limited by how many credits they have.

> Some app which is specialized and requires a million dollars of developer time but only has a market of 10,000 customers.

If you make software for only a few people and you need a lot of money then I don't think this system is for you. It is mostly for developers who make software for everybody.