
Want to chat with inaccessible people? Pay them, not Facebook - joeco
https://www.gramicon.com/pages/howto
======
Irregardless
Which inaccessible people are available on Gramicon? None? Oh, okay... moving
along.

~~~
drd
"Want to talk to someone fast? Purchase credits to get to the top of their
inbox."

Honestly, this looks more like a scam. I hope I am wrong.

------
dbecker
I don't know who your target advertisor or target advertisee is

But, if I were an advertiser, I'd worry that people willing to spend time
looking at ad messages for money don't have a lot of disposable income... and
thus they are exactly the type of people I don't care about advertising to.

~~~
negamax
But that solves the users' problem. No advertiser will ever send them spams or
any promotional message.

I do see value in this for busy people. Who want to receive message by
urgency. So yeah, if it's urgent then only contact me like use case certainly
exists.

I actually liked the concept of pay to send message. Want to contact a star no
problem. Pay the highest or set number of credits and you are in.

~~~
dbecker
You are right that "pay to send" solves the spam problem. But gmail filters
spam so well that this is already a solved problem.

Additionally, the sidebar ads in google or facebook are auctioned off to the
highest bidder. So users are already receiving improved targeting based on
pay-to-send. The only problem I see this solving for users, is that they
collect the money instead of facebook or google.

That is very little money on a per-user basis. So it's not solving a
meaningful problem.

I agree that there is huge potential in "pay-to-send." But this marketing
appears to be off-the-mark.

------
Zak
While I can see this being of use to a certain type of person, the twitter-
only login is a pretty big limitation. Please stop doing that.

~~~
jpdoctor
I'd be curious what rationale was behind this design decision. (ie was it as
simple as expediency?)

------
igul222
Your post advocates a

( ) technical ( ) legislative (x) market-based ( ) vigilante

approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work.

( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses ( ) Mailing lists
and other legitimate email uses would be affected (x) No one will be able to
find the guy or collect the money ( ) It is defenseless against brute force
attacks ( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
(x) Users of email will not put up with it ( ) Microsoft will not put up with
it ( ) The police will not put up with it ( ) Requires too much cooperation
from spammers (x) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
(x) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential
employers ( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists ( )
Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business

Specifically, your plan fails to account for

( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it (x) Lack of centrally controlling authority
for email ( ) Open relays in foreign countries ( ) Ease of searching tiny
alphanumeric address space of all email addresses ( ) Asshats ( )
Jurisdictional problems (x) Unpopularity of weird new taxes (x) Public
reluctance to accept weird new forms of money ( ) Huge existing software
investment in SMTP ( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack (
) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email ( ) Armies of
worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes ( ) Eternal arms race involved
in all filtering approaches ( ) Extreme profitability of spam ( ) Joe jobs
and/or identity theft ( ) Technically illiterate politicians ( ) Extreme
stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers ( ) Dishonesty
on the part of spammers themselves ( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by
client filtering ( ) Outlook

and the following philosophical objections may also apply:

(x) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been
shown practical ( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable ( ) SMTP
headers should not be the subject of legislation ( ) Blacklists suck ( )
Whitelists suck ( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being
censored ( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card
fraud ( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks ( )
Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually (x) Sending email should be
free (x) Why should we have to trust you and your servers? ( ) Incompatiblity
with open source or open source licenses ( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to
solve the problem ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome ( ) I
don't want the government reading my email ( ) Killing them that way is not
slow and painful enough

Furthermore, this is what I think about you:

(x) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work. ( ) This is a stupid idea,
and you're a stupid person for suggesting it. ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going
to find out where you live and burn your house down!

~~~
jerf
If you're in the mood and fast, you can prefix each line with 4 spaces to get
the more traditional monospaced layout of that.

~~~
aleyan
Takes about 30 seconds to do in sublime text but I think the horizontal
scrolling makes it worse.

Your post advocates a

    
    
        ( ) technical 
        ( ) legislative 
        (x) market-based 
        ( ) vigilante

approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work.

    
    
        ( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses 
        ( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected 
        (x) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money 
        ( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks 
        ( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it 
        (x) Users of email will not put up with it 
        ( ) Microsoft will not put up with it 
        ( ) The police will not put up with it 
        ( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers 
        (x) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once 
        (x) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers 
        ( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists 
        ( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business

Specifically, your plan fails to account for

    
    
        ( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it 
        (x) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email 
        ( ) Open relays in foreign countries 
        ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses 
        ( ) Asshats 
        ( ) Jurisdictional problems 
        (x) Unpopularity of weird new taxes 
        (x) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money 
        ( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP 
        ( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack 
        ( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email 
        ( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes 
        ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches 
        ( ) Extreme profitability of spam 
        ( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft 
        ( ) Technically illiterate politicians 
        ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers 
        ( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves 
        ( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering 
        ( ) Outlook

and the following philosophical objections may also apply:

    
    
        (x) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical 
        ( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable 
        ( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation 
        ( ) Blacklists suck 
        ( ) Whitelists suck 
        ( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored 
        ( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud 
        ( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks 
        ( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually 
        (x) Sending email should be free 
        (x) Why should we have to trust you and your servers? 
        ( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses 
        ( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem 
        ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome 
        ( ) I don't want the government reading my email 
        ( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough

Furthermore, this is what I think about you:

    
    
        (x) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work. 
        ( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it. 
        ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!

~~~
jacalata
Why does the horizontal scrolling exist?

~~~
Zak
Because

    
    
        pre { overflow: auto; padding: 2px; max-width:600px; }
    

If you want to override it, you can use a user stylesheet, userscript or the
like.

~~~
jacalata
I meant more like - is it intended to be there? I don't see any benefit from
having it.

~~~
Zak
It prevents someone from breaking the site's layout with super-wide lines of
preformatted text.

------
jgrahamc
I can't imagine using this. I'm interested in hearing from people with the
most interesting things to say, not the ones with the most money.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
So, you're not in politics. Or a lobbyist.

~~~
jQueryIsAwesome
You can't stop corruption but you always create an App to make it more
efficient.

------
pavel_lishin
> As a recipient, you have complete control over the mesages you receive. Your
> inbox is sorted by the number of credits attached to each message, so the
> more valuable messages automatically rise to the top.

Don't they mean, I have zero control over the messages I receive?

------
larrys
I like this idea. It has potential definitely. This is a sales tool and a way
to get your message in front of people that want to know someone took the
effort and has targeted them instead of many people and is willing to pay for
the opportunity. I get solicited plenty by email (and by phone). I would
definitely pay more attention if I knew there was some cost to targeting me
instead of spraying everyone. I can see using this service to get a message I
want to deliver in front of a decision maker (and know that it arrived). One
of the biggest part of sales is getting someone to listen to what you are
saying.

Let's test this out. I can get any HNers idea in front of a well known VC in
NYC that funded Twitter. The cost for having me do this is $25 if I decide
that he should give some thought to your product. If, after I review, he
replies to what I forward (which means it has also passed my review) you owe
the $25. If no reply, you owe $5. Any takers? Send me an email. (By reply I
mean either "yes have them tell me more" or "no not interested" which also has
value.)

~~~
jacalata
The problem is that gramicon doesn't implement the 'if no reply, you owe $5' -
it's free if they don't reply. So the cost for sending a shitty email that
nobody wanted to receive is free.

edit: clarity.

------
zzzeek
this looked like a spectacular idea for a moment, until I saw that Gramicon
credits are pretty much only good for delivering onto a charity or shopping
with "retailers", I'm assuming that small number of charities/retailers who've
made a deal with Gramicon, and Gramicon keeps a hefty portion of the money
that's actually gone into the system.

I'd prefer cash without a middleman, so please use <http://gittip.com/>
instead, which allows knowledge/content creators to become more financially
independent overall (giving us more time to answer your questions).

------
alexlovelltroy
Or. You could get in touch with top VC folks by donating to their charity
through oneleap.to.

<http://oneleap.to/featured/investors>

------
jere
Reminds me very much of a Seth Roberts article earlier this year which
actually references a PG article:

>Here’s what I want: A price per email. A service that charges people for each
email they send me (e.g., $1/email). I get most of the price, the company
providing the service gets a small percentage (1%?).

Even the comments seem like they're describing the exact features here:

>A great feature would be allowing people to pay more and being able to see
that in the inbox. The $40,000 email gets answered first! Seth: Yes, rank them
in your inbox by how much was paid. More paid, closer to the top.

[http://blog.sethroberts.net/2012/03/27/the-future-of-
email-m...](http://blog.sethroberts.net/2012/03/27/the-future-of-email-my-
suggestion/)

------
jmcgough
This has some potential if it got enough traction... but it's another chicken-
or-egg business which is going to have trouble drawing users without having
anyone people actually want to talk to.

Slideshare is here <http://www.slideshare.net/gramicon> if anyone is curious.
The monetization rate is really low for their case study (less than 1% of
clickthroughs and even >1% of registered users), but I'd imagine more of their
monetization would come from advertisers - if they can convince people to
stick around and keep using Gramicon.

------
neilk
You Might Be An Anti-Spam Kook If... you assume that your attention is so
important that strangers will pay money to send you mail.

[http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/you-might-
be.html#e-postag...](http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/you-might-
be.html#e-postage)

~~~
SkyAtWork
Doesn't seem too kooky, there's $163 billion spent every year to do just that:
<http://www.the-dma.org/cgi/dispannouncements?article=1590>

------
swang
Why is this linkbaity title still allowed by the HN mods? The mods usually
forbid (and then change) misleading titles and this to me seems like an
obvious one.

It's essentially just free advertisement for this website masking itself as an
article about a recent Facebook change.

------
mleeds
A great opportunity for an entrepreneur to take these emails and direct them
to the spam folder.

~~~
corresation
It says that a read message demands a reply, and a replied to message can be
rated upon by the receiver.

There was a service years back that did something similar via the phone -- you
could register as an expert of something and people would call and pay them
for time with you. It _is_ a good idea, fundamentally, though voice was a
horrendous medium for it.

~~~
dbecker
If you have to reply to get paid, you could hire someone on oDesk to reply to
your gramicon mails for $3/hr.

~~~
corresation
That would be a cynical view of it, sure. I do consulting work, 90%+ of it out
of sight. I _could_ technically hire some offshore help to do it for me, but
it turns out that the reason people pay me what they do is the insight and
knowledge that I bring to the work. The exact same principal applies here.

I can see something like this (not necessarily this implementation with their
ridiculous psuedo-currency) having applicability for core developers of widely
used projects (Apache, nginx, Linux, Cyanogen, etc). If they gave useless
replies the jig would be up.

Aside from the technical, in the gaming community lots of people like to email
Gabe Newell about Half Life 3, for funny comments, etc, usually to cash in for
karma on Reddit. It would make it more interesting if he could have something
like this with proceeds donated to charity.

~~~
dbecker
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think they've changed their front page over the course
of the day (perhaps in response to these comments).

When I first read it, it looked like a way for advertisers to reach potential
buyers. If that's the case, then someone on oDesk could easily respond
pretending to be interested in a product just as well as I could.

Envisioned more broadly as a way to pay for the time someone spends responding
to email, it would be hard to outsource my role in email correspondance.

------
joeco
Thanks so much for the feedback. I'm impressed and encouraged by the number of
people who think that this is a good idea.

To the others, I wouldn't think of this as a replacement for e-mail. E-mail is
great for a majority of communications. Framing messaging from a historical
perspective helps understand where our company fits.

Prior to the internet when you wanted to communicate with someone you had to
attach value to that message. Whether it was a letter, long distance phone
call, telegram, or other form of communication the cost and the time that it
took to send were non-zero. The cost was also apparent to the recipient, which
often had an impact on the recipient's likelihood of replying. The internet
has done a terrific job unburdening messages of their cost and the amount of
time it takes to send them. At the same time, it has created a problem of a
small signal-to-noise ratio.

Consider a journalist who I would like to cover a story. With a list of 800
journalist's emails I can send 800 emails instantly. At the same time, with
each journalist I am competing with hundreds of other message senders. This
includes people with bad ideas for a news story who suffer no transaction cost
in sending their messages. If I could communicate my value on the that
journalist's time I could rise about the noise and communicate that idea more
successfully. The system wouldn't be perfect, but I am betting that the
overlap between people who place real value on a recipient's time and people
who are offering value to the recipient is larger than the overlap between
people who place no value on a recipient's time and people who are offering
value to that recipient.

There's also a lot of discussion as to what these credits are worth. Right
now, they're pixels on a screen. Scarce pixels. As we grow an ecosystem of
message-sending, some people and companies may decide that they would like to
purchase credits at a discount and offer to do things like paypal money or
send discount codes for certain number of credits. At first though, the
credits won't be the point. The point will be that we will provide a service
for those people which will allow them to filter out people who place zero
value on their attention.

I’ll address twitter sign-in quickly. When you log on to Gramicon the users
who float to the top of your “find users” page are the ones you follow on
twitter. Here is a list of people who you have already identified as
interesting or notable. Next to their usernames you can see the average price
in order to get a reply as well as their user-generated rating. Right now we
only allow twitter login because we don’t want people signing up with facebook
or their email and choosing the username kanyewest or stevecase.

Thanks and stay tuned for updates!

------
rjzzleep
this is awesome, doing the same thing i built about a year ago. couldn't pull
it off successfully though. maybe they can

------
michaelochurch
The stone man looked it, but was not a statue. Once every few years, sometimes
in winter and sometimes in summer, he would become flesh for long enough to
speak a few words. All listened, for he was wise. Then he would sleep. A color
appeared in him. His hand began to tremble. His mouth began to move. He said,
"This is not the solution to that problem." Then his mouth stopped moving, and
he returned to stone.

