If bootstrapped young startups aren't in Chargify's target market, then I'd argue that "the target market" was poorly chosen.
Why might the low-budget territory (with costs from $0-$30/month) be useful for Chargify to cover? Not because you'll make much money from that territory. In fact, you might, on balance, lose money on the people who remain in that group. However, everyone who starts there won't stay there, because some will ultimately become your multi-thousand-subscription core users a year from now. In other words, it might act as a "loss leader." This pricing structure, given the pricing structure of the competition, risks diminishing the wellspring of new users for Chargify.
Restated, my (testable) hypothesis is that (a) if you have similar competitors, and (b) you make yourself unpalatable to your low-tier users, then you will see reduced growth in your high-tier users. It looks like Chargify is willing to test that hypothesis.
Why might the low-budget territory (with costs from $0-$30/month) be useful for Chargify to cover? Not because you'll make much money from that territory. In fact, you might, on balance, lose money on the people who remain in that group. However, everyone who starts there won't stay there, because some will ultimately become your multi-thousand-subscription core users a year from now. In other words, it might act as a "loss leader." This pricing structure, given the pricing structure of the competition, risks diminishing the wellspring of new users for Chargify.
Restated, my (testable) hypothesis is that (a) if you have similar competitors, and (b) you make yourself unpalatable to your low-tier users, then you will see reduced growth in your high-tier users. It looks like Chargify is willing to test that hypothesis.