
Jason Scott: “Here's some thoughts, before Patreon dies.” - edward
https://twitter.com/textfiles/status/1230184047982366724
======
tharne
Patreon signed its own death warrant when it started censoring certain artists
and creatives it deemed to be "unacceptable". Throughout history the most
creative and interesting ideas have frequently been on the edge of what's
considered morally or socially acceptable at a given point in time (think
Oscar Wilde). Yes, you will end up with some very despicable people on your
site if you don't practice censorship, but you'll also end up with some very
exciting ones, and even some that are both despicable and existing. Creativity
and censorship cannot live side by side.

~~~
Barrin92
I have to seriously laugh at the idea of comparing Oscar Wilde, a gay dandy in
Victorian England to the few racists that patreon has thrown off its platform.
But I guess comparing the worst corners of the internet to great historical
artists is worth an attempt.

Either way I'm not really sure where the death talk is coming from because
patreon seems to be doing fine.

~~~
geofft
They did also crack down on erotica a couple years back, but I thought they'd
walked that back in some fashion. I do agree that the comment you're replying
to is likely to be a dog-whistle for cracking down on racists.

Anyway, there is news from the last day about Patreon setting up "Patreon
Capital" where they offer loans to creators. I suppose the extrapolation is
that they're doing this because their existing (useful-to-the-world) business
isn't profitable enough for their VCs.

~~~
WorldMaker
The argument/extrapolation I've been hearing has more to do that Patreon maybe
couldn't be trusted as "Patreon Capital" is a business model of known
predators ("Pay-Day Loans" aka "Loan Sharks"). Whether or not Patreon needed
to do it to make their VCs happier with their business model or if they
thought the new business model would be more profitable or as their PR seems
to imply they just thought it would a useful feature intended to help their
"Creators", it smells like an escalation (to possibly "mob boss") in Patreon's
relationship with their "Creators" and the "Creators" _may_ be likely to bolt
from distrust.

------
rasz
Patreon should use VC dough to buy Opera back from Chinese. Opera has this
whole mobile micro 800% APR loans with blackmail thing figured out, and as a
bonus they get a modern web browser!

[https://www.androidpolice.com/2020/01/21/opera-predatory-
loa...](https://www.androidpolice.com/2020/01/21/opera-predatory-loans/)

------
manfredo
Does Patreon prohibit its creators from offering subscriptions elsewhere? If I
was a creator, I'd create my own subscription service on my own site and offer
the same subscription packages at lower prices. Patrons benefit by getting the
same content at a lower price, and I benefit by cutting out the middleman.

------
Kye
I got a Ko-fi Gold subscription to help build up alternatives. They're trying
to get by on subscriptions, but seem to do okay. I like to think all my
patrons would switch over if Patreon blew up, but I know how much it matters
that they already had Patreon accounts.

------
_bxg1
Venture capitalists are vampires. I'd only ever work at a company beholden to
them with the assumption that it'll be a short-term affair of learning,
saving, and "good snacks". There's no way in hell I'd let them anywhere near
one of my own ideas that I had any faith in at all.

~~~
erikpukinskis
I think VCs are good for “gamble” companies where if you miss your medium term
goals you can be happy chopping the assets up for parts.

If it’s a business you want to see through to the end, through thick and thin,
then you basically need your VC’s to be founder-level personal compatibility.
Which narrows the available pool of money A LOT.

You can also take VC if you can bootstrap through product market fit and only
take money during the growth phase, and you can stop after one round. I.e. you
are already profitable, you want to take debt to do capital expenditures, and
you can turn off the CapEx and go back to profitability after you spend the VC
money.

Patreon seems to have gotten addicted to financing very early, which is a very
weak position to negotiate from, and hampers your ability to make decisions
that benefit the long term health of the company.

~~~
_bxg1
Maybe it's selection bias, but it seems like every "successful" VC-backed
startup I read about ends up destroying what could've been a profitable core
product and burning itself up out of the sheer growth-pressure imposed upon it
by investors. Dozens of what could have been sustainable small businesses,
crumpled up and thrown in the bin because they couldn't achieve ludicrous
unicorn growth. That's not good for the economy.

The "quit after round 1" idea makes sense, though.

