<center><p>@achim03! <b>@edgerik likes your content!</b> so I just sent 1 <b>BBH</b> to your account on behalf of @edgerik. <sub>(20/50)</sub></p>
<p><!--<img src="https://i.imgur.com/QwsegY0.png">--></p></center>

Great idea , it should be implemented. Yes then the projects don't have to relay on DHF's. 

We've all been accustomed to the idea of a free to consume social media and also F2P games. Of course, lots of these ventures are heavily backed by VC money so it's a grow at all costs policy before they even need to think of ways to monetise. 

I guess at the end of the day, any product on HIVE has to first be appealing enough to draw a large userbase. That means attracting users from outside of HIVE instead of depending on just leeching whatever free audience available here. 

I'd say Splinterlands was and is still the breakout star of HIVE. At it's peak, new users were flooding into the ecosystem without even knowing the existence of the HIVE blockchain it was built on.

Most (all?) Games already have a mechanism to pay. I'm not big on paying for social media or subscriptions in general. Hive already has a problem attracting and retaining users. I don't see how making them pay will help matters. I suppose front end authors could force a beneficiary and charge a small percent that way. I think 3speak does this and so does ecency when you post a video (but you can change it).

You bring up some very valid points here.
Sustainability is definitely one of the biggest challenges for projects in the blockchain space.
It's true that building something is one thing, but maintaining if long-term, covering costs, and continuously improving it is a whole different story.
Encouraging entrepreneurship and creating a culture where quality work gets rewarded is definitely the way forward.

!PIZZA
!BBH

> Wouldn't it be fair that we pay for the tools that we use to make money?

I am all for paying more when a value added service is delivered. There is already a built in fee to post on Hive. 

> I then see the premium concept that inleo has established and maybe it's not such a bad idea to think about asking for money to enjoy a service. 

I think the Inleo Premium is a bad idea and the affiliate subscription program that is unfolding is a worse idea.

Again, I am all for paying when there is value added to an existing service but to charge extra to edit a post and to suggest you will make more money by subscribing is not about offering a quality product or service. That looks like a tactic to channel more money to an upline.

May Positive [pepEntropy](https://tribaldex.com/trade/PEPENTROPY) be with you.

!LOLZ

This post has been manually curated by @steemflow from Indiaunited community. Join us on our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/bGmS2tE). 

Do you know that you can earn a passive income by delegating to @indiaunited. We share more than 100 % of the curation rewards with the delegators in the form of IUC tokens. HP delegators and IUC token holders also get upto 20% additional vote weight. 

Here are some handy links for delegations: [100HP](https://hivesigner.com/sign/delegateVestingShares?delegator=&delegatee=indiaunited&vesting_shares=169340.3243449658%20VESTS), [250HP](https://hivesigner.com/sign/delegateVestingShares?delegator=&delegatee=indiaunited&vesting_shares=423350.8108624146%20VESTS), [500HP](https://hivesigner.com/sign/delegateVestingShares?delegator=&delegatee=indiaunited&vesting_shares=846701.6217248292%20VESTS), [1000HP](https://hivesigner.com/sign/delegateVestingShares?delegator=&delegatee=indiaunited&vesting_shares=1693403.2434496584%20VESTS). 

[![image.png](https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/bala41288/46eaz12N-image.png)](https://discord.gg/bGmS2tE) 

<sub>**100% of the rewards from this comment goes to the curator for their manual curation efforts. Please encourage the curator @steemflow by upvoting this comment and support the community by voting the posts made by @indiaunited.**</sub>

You can set up beneficiaries to split the earnings. But I think the problem is not within HIVE. 
Those who are registered on the blockchain and benefit from the communities and earning mechanisms and services of developers could continue to use the ecosystem for free, because they are the ones who keep it alive.
I think the problem lies outside. All posts can be viewed from the outside, even by those who are not registered and therefore do not participate in the blockchain movement. By not receiving votes, earnings are zero. By reading the posts freely, they benefit from the content but do not participate in the blockchain.  It should be established in what percentage of the accesses to the blockchain posts are made from the "outside", from non-registered users. 

I think that the HIVE blockchain should be a closed environment, intended for registered users.
Forcing registration to read means onboarding and having more people vote for witnesses, beneficiaries, supporting developers, trading tokens, increasing the value of HIVE itself. 

Because of of the features/benefits of the HIVE block chain is no fees (and very few ads), the presumption is that everything built on this platform would also have no fees involved.  But value for value, if a product is useful enough, people would be willing to pay.  Many people here are investment-minded, so any service that has a cost associated, in many cases must offer a greater return than the cost.

It's and up-hill battle getting new people to use these products even for FREE, not because they are low-quality, but because for some reason people are afraid of the technology.  Either they think crypto is a scam, or they're intimidated with posting requirements, or managing keys.  I suspect it's a catch-22 situation: having too few users and few to no name-brand names, creates a psychological barrier for new users.  How can we we get new users, unless we already have many users?

Once this blockchain (and platforms) reaches a "critical mass" of users, then I think we can discuss associated costs.  Even a MASSIVE platform like "X" (with millions of users) only costs between $3.00/month and $16/month for their premium services.  How much would a service on HIVE get away with charging per month?

That is a valid point. At this point, I think most of the free stuff is depending on the DHF and I know there is a lot of disagreement towards how that is distributed. I don't think having some paid features that are blocked off isn't so bad.

I think it's a good idea. On other free social media, they also don't host your content forever for free.
Using the dhf to sustain projects long term means they aren't successful and therefore makes me question the long term sustainability of that tool.

<center>PIZZA!


$PIZZA slices delivered:
@edgerik<sub>(3/15)</sub> tipped @achim03 


</center>

I think the tiered version seems to work well in mainstream, be it X/Twitter or Spotify. Or even ChatGPT. Limited access for free users versus more functions for paid users. I think most of us wouldn't mind paying for something meaningful.

You already have exclusive content that you have to pay for (I think InLeo has), games (as you mentioned) that you have to buy a starter pack for, and some apps that you have to pay for (I think there's a plugin for WordPress).
So, I think it's a matter of developers and those who would consume/use it.
I don't mind; if there's something useful, I'll subscribe (like I subscribe to services outside Hive).
But, you have to remember that DHF is for, at least as a first step, if it's possible to do something for the community with support.
You can try - closing your service (The online course, for example); I mean, put it on a subscription (some LEN per week/month or Hive/HBD, it doesn't matter).