Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Show HN: Expensive Chat – Pay one cent per letter (expensive.chat)
250 points by keesj on Feb 28, 2019 | hide | past | web | favorite | 203 comments

Reminds me of that 1000x1000 ad site from the 90's where you could buy an ad based on how many pixels you purchased. Allow someone to pay to set the chat room topic, the colour scheme, etc. Maybe some Rich instagram kids will throw some cash at it for bragging rights.

The ads also still get traffic, A while back I wrote a script to list all the domains that had expired and bought one at random for shits and giggles. GA reported about 100 uniques per month.

Hilarious! I just scraped all the domains and did nslookups on all of them to see which where expired. Then I registered the one with the largest area (milliondollarconnect.com occupied 1000 pixels) at x1, y1 = 710, 750 (the ad that looks like a glassy oval). Will report back on traffic.

that's a pretty interesting idea. I did something similar a while back to grab expired image hosting websites that still had a ton of images linked to them.

expired domains are a continual source of fun.

Advertisers are now getting more value being viewed on my 4K display scaled for the website. A dollar for four pixels!

They're getting more pixels but those pixels are smaller!

The plight of promising an object but not a dimension! :)

wow ... I just spotted ling's cars! Besides 'The Times', I've not spotted anything which I recognise on there. And I'm kinda surprised there aren't more porn adverts, to be honest.

Thanks to your comment, I discovered Ling's website, it is a work of art! I love it!

[0]https://www.lingscars.com/ [1]https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/li...

Epic :D

View Source ;).

The founder of that, Alex Tew, is still around and doing things.

Last I saw, he was running the 'Calm' app.

Did not know Calm was built by him. Thanks for the info.

Him and the guy who created Moshi Monsters and firebox.com. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/health-fitness/mind/moshi-monste...

I actually made something kinda similar: http://www.ipaidthemost.com/

Every once in a while someone stumbles onto it and drops another dollar in, but I haven't remembered to even bring it up in over a year. I feel like it's just novel enough that if I ever got around to promoting it, it might get to a vaguely reasonable amount of money.

Something like that is still up, albeit with a cryptocurrency: http://iota.show

I know, it is not exactly identical to what you are saying, but this is what came to mind, and the idea is very similar, if not the same.

Made my mobile Chrome app freeze and crash.

I am sorry about that! I wouldn't have known it would do that, I do not use my mobile to browse the Internet because it does freeze more often than not, and when it does not, it is slow. :/

It should work from your PC though.

Off topic, but maybe you should try Firefox for Android? I have it on mobile (with uMatrix admittedly) and it hasn't crashed on me for ages...

It is OK, my phone is really old and not suitable for surfing the Internet. Thanks though!

Same here. Fortunately I've searched for "pixel" before making a redundant comment :^)

This looked oddly similar to https://highscore.money and... it’s the same guy, Marc.

For what it’s worth, we had one of top ten spots on the highscore.money, got some traffic from it (and still get a trickle), but all of them were immediate bounces. Caveat emptor.

I'm reminded how, last year, at work, they changed the length limits on performance reviews from characters to words. They found that character limits resulted in men having more room to express themselves than women -- "she" is longer than "he"; "girl" is longer than "guy", and "female" is longer than "male".

Twitter also has interesting per-country dynamics because it uses a character limit. In Chinese or Japanese, 140 characters can express more words than in English.

I don't get the performance review thing, do people talk about themselves in the third person? I guess for peer reviews you would have less space if you were reviewing a woman, but it doesn't make sense for talking about yourself.

^ I also find it culturally interesting that basically every female descriptor I can think of is more characters than the male counterpart.

That's because most of them are modifiers "wo"-men, "fe"-male, etc. Which really is pretty demeaning if you think about it.

Over the years, there have been efforts in feminist and academic circles to introduce alternate spellings that are not derived this way. [0]

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Womyn

They've certainly come to appear that way, but in female/male (and, to a lesser extent, woman/man) the etymology is distinct.

Female comes through Old French "femelle", which ultimately traces back to Latin "femina" (where we also get "feminine", et al.).[0] Male comes through Old French "masle", derived from Latin "mas" (from which we get "masculine").[1]

It does appear that the ultimate transformation that aligned their spellings _does_ come from the many-centuries-old belief that they shared a common root (see the article on "female").

Woman was indeed a modifier on "man", originally "wifman", but at a time when "man" was almost exclusively in the sense of a human being (e.g., "mankind"). Prior to that, the sexes were "wer" (as in "werewolf") and "wif".[2] A couple centuries after "wifman" is first attested (around which time "werman" was also present), "wer" died off in favor of "man" and we ended up with the roots of our modern words.[3]

None of this to say that people should not continue evolving the language - the modern connotation and perception is far more important in informing how things continue to change. Just hoping to point out that the words actually _weren't_ derived that way.

Your point does, of course, still stand in the facts that "female" was modified to resemble "male" and "wifman" remained when "werman" died out, but this doesn't seem (to me) as demeaning as the idea that they have always been modifiers of the words referring exclusively to male humans.

[0] https://www.etymonline.com/word/female#etymonline_v_5841

[1] https://www.etymonline.com/word/male#etymonline_v_42792

[2] https://www.etymonline.com/word/woman#etymonline_v_10826

[3] https://www.etymonline.com/word/man#etymonline_v_6766

Genuine question and not some MRA trolling, but how is that demeaning? How would the etymology of English pronouns would be demeaning to anyone?

The etymology of "woman" is very demeaning. It literally means "wife of man" or "servant".


> The etymology of "woman" is very demeaning. It literally means "wife of man" or "servant".

Your own source disagrees with you; while it does say that it came from a word formed from “wif” plus “man”, “wif” didn't mean what “wife” means now but what ”woman” means now, and “man” meant what “person” means now (which is among the current meanings of “man”, too.)

The literal meaning of the compound is “woman person”. It's true that the compound “wifman” was used both for “woman” and “female servant”, but it's worth noting that the modern English word “man” includes among its meanings (and has for centuries) both “male person” and “male servant” (the latter being most commonly used preceded by a possessive indicating whose male servant is being referred to), so that the old “wifman” was a pretty exact equivalent of the modern “man” ignoring the (semantic, not grammatical) gender neutral senses of the latter.

If you click the link for "man" it lists "servant" as one of the Old English meanings, so it stands to reason that a word consisting of the terms for "female" and "servant" would mean a "female servant". Remember that back in the day being a servant used to be the default for most people.

Seems like a thoughtful and helpful response to me, including a wiki link.

> Which really is pretty demeaning if you think about it.

Not really: Languages have millions of positive modifiers (including for higher social status) so why assume (and indirectly promote) these ones as automatically pejorative?

Connotations are unrelated to length. Super(wo)man isn't "lesser" just because it takes longer to say, the "default" isn't automatically best.

That is an interesting point I had never considered.

It's such an obvious idea, and it has been around for as long as spam e-mail has been a problem. I absolutely do not understand why it has not yet been adopted for all e-mail traffic worldwide. If an e-mail were to cost just one cent, it would never add up to an amount that a normal person would even notice, yet it would solve the problem of spam e-mail over night.

But I still receive spam mail in my (physical) mailbox. I imagine they're not doing that for free either.

I agree with you though, it would probably still (drastically) reduce the amount of spam we have to deal with and we might still get some very specific targeted spam

It would kill newsletters and mailing lists. Also, considering that SMS spam is a thing (they cost just under a cent to send), it's not a foolproof solution.

This was one of the motivators described in the original Bitcoin white paper

And Hashcash, 12 years before that.

I wonder if this would have the unintended consequence of incentivizing companies to get even more of our personal data so that they're more judicious & targeted in who/what/when they send their emails.

There is De-Mail in Germany that is basically E-Mail. Initially, sending a De-Mail would cost a couple cents. It also offered the possibility to be legally binding, like a physical letter.

Despite some technical/security issues with it, nonne really uses it (although you can now send them for free, IIRC).

maybe it only costs a cent if the receiver does not accept it

Where would the money go?

Perhaps into a cryptocurrency wallet of my choosing to cover my bandwidth and storage costs incurred by receiving the message?

In fact, I wonder if this could be shoehorned into SMTP somehow? I.e. automatically respond with a unique wallet public key, and only forward the message if said wallet receives a specified payment?

Hi all. About 2.5 years ago I created Highscore Money. I was looking at pay-to-play games and wondered what would happen if you'd take it to the extreme. The result was just a leaderboard you'd pay your way into. Whatever you pay, that's your score.

Today, I'm launching a new social experiment. A chatroom where you pay for every message you send. Normally chatrooms can get messy quick, because there's no cost to sending a message. Expensive Chat changes this dynamic.

What makes this a social experiment rather than a simple cash grab? Are you donating all the money to a charity?

Are you shaming HN users for trying to monetize something?

They are shaming them for using the "social experiment" label.

That question is comparable to the type of question which is often used in politics to silence opponents. In that sense it should be against HN rules, as to whether it is I don't know.

As far as I'm concerned he just asked a question which can be answered without the need for 'defenders' to show up and challenge the questioner - and with that stifle the discourse here.

The same logic applies to the question you're replying to. Were it me that was asked the question, I'd simply say "no, I was just curious."

If the money was donated this would just make this an alternative way to donate money to charity, the creator pocketing the money is necessary for this to be a social experiment.

He could give the money to me and the “social experiment” part would be unaffected, I think. He could burn the money. Keeping it is not really out of necessity.

Give the money to the person who spent the most until someone overtakes them and gets the money next.

So basically a dollar auction except the richest person always wins?

But that just makes it an alternative to giving the creator money directly.

"How is this a plane? Is it made of wool?"

"If it was made of wool it would be a comfy hat, it not being made of wool is necessary for it to be a plane. Notice how I'm not even claiming that it's a plane."

Neato. I'll just refer to beggars and scammers as "social experimenters" from now on then.

When famed game designer Peter Molyneux came back out of hiding to launch his mobile games with a company called 22cans he also used the "social experiment" label to justify a pay-to-win clicker game and a "crowdfunded" god game with in-app purchases (that were later removed).

The answer is: "social experiment" apps and games are just cash grabs with a veneer of clever marketing to them. The Million Dollar Homepage was probably the first one this blatant though.

The outcome of the "experiment" is known in advance: people will pay unreasonable amounts of money for objectively worthless things if you can convince enough of them that it's cool. If it were an actual experiment, there would be some analysis published after the fact and the money would either be reimbursed or donated.

Social experiments aren't experiments and they're mostly anti-social if anything. In video content it's code for (staged) "prank" (or harassment). In cases like this it's code for "grifting".

"In cases like this it's code for "grifting""

Are you accusing the pay per letter scheme of being grifting?

How? They aren't misleading anybody.

What makes this different than any other business idea that legally convinces customers to part with their money?

The same as the difference between any other business idea that legally convinces customers to part with their money, and any social experiment.

It's an experiment on how much cash you can grab :)

I think it is possible to do both, at the same time. :D

What makes this not a social experiment?

If you donate the money, that changes the dynamic of the experiment.

How would you differentiate between cash grab and social experiment?

Who says you can't profit from an experiment?

son, i have to explain you a couple of things about capitalism... ;)

I see a following potential issue: when it becomes popular, company advertising product is much more likely to spend $1 than the average user.

Interestingly enough that should hold true regardless of the price (assuming popularity, and very low risk that this is all just generated by a single person). Because users who spend more money are a more valuable target.

Thing is, if it becomes more popular it becomes more spammed by ads and thus decrease in popularity, resulting it becoming less desirable to advertise on. Definitely an interesting social experiment, as well as a great cash grab. I'd love to see some data on the relationship between advertisement frequency and user-ship.

Didn't this happen to the donation leaderboards on Humble Bundle? I recall that being the case a few years ago at least. Of course all the money went to a good cause so it's all good.

Every message so far is some form of test. And what else would you expect? Nobody will care to continue chatting if there is no purpose uniting the room, especially when the more you participate the worse off you are. What are you hoping to achieve here? Or is this just a useless gimmick to get you a couple bucks?

Now there's spam as well. Progress!

Front-page of HN and its not working. No-one has said anything for 90 mins. I tried to chat, signed up, nothing happened.

Now it seems to be working for other people, but not for me. Perhaps because I'm not in the USA.

It's blank for me, is it μblock?

Hmm, don't think I'm giving a random site (that breaches EU online business laws: must have an irl address for service) my CC info.

If you spend 1¢ on posting ":smiley:" every day, won't that cost him about 20¢ transaction costs? Eventual DoS by CC transaction costs??

Love the spirit of it on an intellectual level though.

>EU online business laws: must have an irl address for service

I think that's only in the German speaking part, not the whole EU.

There's a directive from some time ago, maybe 10 years, requiring businesses to put a bricks & mortar address for service on all marketing materials (I modified a few sites at the time), and ecommerce regulations add to that.

eg https://www.iweb.co.uk/2016/09/ecommerce-website-legal-requi...

I can dig out references to the EU directives if you like but they should be easy to find.

OP here. You make a great point.

I've clarified payments are handled through Stripe. Hopefully that alleviates at least some concerns.

As for the transaction cost, I actually negotiated a lower fixed fee and higher percentage. Also, if the fees would be higher than the revenue Stripe is smart enough not to process the payment.

It's using Stripe for payment, so this site never sees your CC info.

Yes, but the costs are still the same. Even stripe has a 2.9% + 30¢ cost per transaction.

Better write something worth the money then.

Stripe doesn't bill the end-user these fees. In many US states, it would be illegal to do such as well.

I'd feel more comfortable with a Stripe branded off-site transaction if that's the case. Get that credit card field off of the seedy untrusted site.

But to users it looks like you're giving your CC info to a random website. I'd prefer being redirected to a trusted payment processor.

A perfect use case for Privacy.com (if you aren't using it already, do it).

-- not affiliated in any way, just a happy user.

I just broke this website sending this: " sending unicode characters for fun "

where did you find those characters?

The implementation is clean AF and the idea is super fun! Really neat job there! This probably won't take off as-is but I feel like there's untapped potential to be leveraged.

The creator is the same guy that made wip.chat & betalist. I wouldn't be surprised if he keeps building on it and it succeeds.

Of course it is! What an inspiring community.

thanks for the kind words :)

Interesting language effects at play. There’s a message in there: “你好吗?” Which is priced at 4c

The equivalent message in English “how are you?” Is 10c

We can make it more fair by pricing UTF-8 bytes.

你好吗 = 9 bytes

how are you = 11 bytes

not really. according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTF-8 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Roadmap_to_Unicode_BMP.sv..., any codepoint bigger 0x80 (second half of the first box) is 2 byte per character, and codepoint bigger than 0x800 (anything past the 8th box) is 3 bytes charater. so while it might be fair for CJK languages, it's even less fair for languages that don't mostly use the latin alphabet.

That's true, considering the name of the website they would have the privilege of an even more expensive chat.

per-byte pricing opens the pathway to posting images too!

It reminds me of writing SMS messages - using all the awful txt spk to use as few characters as possible and save money.

Not just to save space.

Typing with T9 was much more time-consuming that our autocomplete touch keyboards.

Are you sure you're not thinking of multi-tap on a keypad and not T9?

Once you've learned T9 (the one where you tap a key a single time for each letter in the word and a lookup is made based on the combination). You can surely be faster than Qwerty.

This was also the reason I developed https://typenineapp.com [1] for iPhone once they allowed custom keyboards.

I am on average 20wpm faster (50wpm for english, 60wpm for my native language danish) with Type Nine on my iPhone compared to the apple qwerty keyboard.

Even though you don't have the tactile feedback of the previous T9 phones on the iPhone I can type without looking just the same way as on a phone with a physical keyboard.

[1] More on my thoughts here - https://medium.com/porsager/a-better-iphone-typing-experienc...

This perpetuated myth has annoyed me greatly. Somehow, very few people actually know how a T9 keyboard actually works.

In fact, T9 is one of the last few reasons why I only VERY recently got myself an iPhone. T9 is superior in almost every way to a full touch-based QWERTY when writing texts.

So, great idea and product, mate. This is a buy from me.

But it could be done without looking. Driving home, reach for phone in the other seat, unlock, go to your contact (you remember the phonebook position of your frequent contacts), choose send sms, type the message fairly quickly, send. This could all be done fast and reliable without one look, perhaps one last glance before sending to make sure it looks right.

Even easier to do that now. "Ok Google/Hey Siri send $contact $message" <confirm message via voice read back and send>.

Yes, if you don't have the radio on, if other people aren't talking, if your car isn't loud and rattling, if you don't mind sharing the data with google and of course if the voice recognition and app interfacing works at all. Not all of the above are always true.

But I know, things are not all bad. I'm only a bit saddened by the disappearance of the reliable deterministic haptic-only control that older phones had.

I really don't think so, or at least not when you're a "power user". I used T9 when I was a teenager glued to his phone, and was definitely way faster to type than I am now with a touchscreen and autocompletion.

I was also faster than my friends that did not use T9 but wrote in "txt spk"

I'd say it was on par with non-Swype Android keyboards. One button press per letter, fewer buttons to choose between and tactile physical buttons to push, so more accurate presses. Correcting a wrong word was about the same effort.

Such compression tricks were also used save money on costly telegraph messages. The telegraph was arguably the first internet device, tying the world together at lightspeed. But wires were expensive and messages consequently so. A standard ten word message cost a workers average day wage. So people used abbreviation tricks seen in texting and twitter. And companies had code word dictionaries where a single word might mean a whole sentence. This saved cost and disquised messages.

In the early days messages were limited by the number of wires, the speed of human operators at both ends and electrical degradation of long wires. 20 bits per second was a good speed. Physicists like Faraday and Maxwell figured out how to lessen degradation. Inventors like Thomas Edison figured out how to multiplex multiple signals on the same wire. And how transmit messages at superhuman speeds with tape players and recorders at both ends.

Those codes are still in use.


I love that people are already working around the model by embedding part of the message in the username.

That took all of three messages...

The cheer fact that people actually payed to use it is boggling my mind. I suppose the conclusion is that I need to work a lot more to even start understanding how people think !

It looks like you're using stripe to process your payments. Does this mean that if I send a 1-character message it will cost you money?

I have the same feeling. With only 300 bucks we can make this guy lose 10K :D

( $10.000 / ( 0.3 + ( 0.029 * 0.01$ ) ) * 0.01 = $333,01

We would need a javascript script that would make 33301 payments of 1 cent.

This would be a very cost efficient attack between business rivals.

Looks like he bills you at the end of the day.

Perhaps if you spent less than 33 cents he won't...

Are you a business rival to Expensive Chat?

No but I might be a rich asshole with too much free time :D

"Some men just want to watch the world burn."

Stripe could do that XD

In our Stripe integration, you're unable to process a payment that is less than the transaction fee. The minimum is around 33 cents.

For this very reason, Stripe does not allow you to pay less than the charge for the payment.

I'm curious, is it needed to generate an invoice for every payment received? How is the accounting managed?

Interesting question! I would assume that some invoice must be generated, but it can be in electronic form (e-mail). Getting this right internationally is still a major problem as far as I'm aware, but would love to know if there is a (cheap enough) service that solves it...

Users are charged only once every 24 hours aggregating their usage of the previous period. This way the number of charges/fees/invoices are limited to a relatively small number.

I want people to pay per letter they email me ...

"Hey it looks like you want to send Amelius an email. Please visit this page, where you can pay and make sure your email actually arrives"

Are you able to process payments as low as 1c and if so, aren't fees exceeding the amount charged?

What if he waits to collect your payments until they reach a point where fees aren't exceeding them anymore?

Stripe allows you to do that?

Yes. They offer something called metered billing. You report usage, and only invoice once the customer hits a certain threshold or after a certain time period. (whatever comes first).

That screams blockchain, doesn't it? ;-)

Does it? I thought even bitcoin had transaction fees.

Sender pays them for the most part. You can get the receiver to pay, but its unusual and dependable on the receiver actively choosing to pay, so they can simply set a threshold

It was a joke.

But you can use cryptocurrencies/blockchains to send messages, and you would use the proof of work to make sure the price is paid.

You can use messaging software to send messages and CC transactions to make sure the price is paid. Crypto/blockchain adds nothing to this scenario and creates headaches.

Now you get a $30 fee on your 1c transaction

This could make for an interesting idea for 'Quora for mentors', whereby someone pays money (maybe more than 1c) to ask a specific question to a 'business leader'.

Various companies have been doing this for a while (and it's a business model that existed long before the internet).

This is the one I know best and have used: https://clarity.fm/

It was great a few years ago for validation for a B2B product we wanted to sell and needed unbiased feedback on.

"It was great a few years ago for validation..." It isn't good anymore?

I don’t know, as I haven’t had a reason to use it.

Justin Kan & others tried this a few years ago with Whale (https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/whale-3)

It exists, it's called https://earn.com/. You pay in cryptocurrency, but it works.

I'm fairly sure that has been tried before a few times. Is it really needed though? Stack exchange is fairly good for free.

It's interesting that this favours pictographic languages. You can express a lot more in a few "characters" of Chinese than you can in English! Might be a little more fair if you charged per byte instead of per character, but they would still have a big advantage.

I suppose the same kind of thing applies to the character limit on Twitter.

Yes. If I remember correctly when Twitter rose the character limit to 280, it was kept to 140 for tweets in CJK languages.

One thought: you should let the user know that you are using Stripe(?), instead of a random credit card form. Cool thing!

added! thanks for suggestion

what about making something similar, but where the cost formula is an^2? a should be some constant factor like a tenth of a cent and n should be the number of chars, i.e. per message or in the last 24 hrs. If Twitter worked that way instead of an arbitrary 140/280 char limit, it would be so much cleaner.

Seems it has been taken down? Now it only returns three dots.

Server went down. Up now :)

This reminds me of Twitch, where many streamers have it set up so that you can get a message displayed or even automatically read out on stream if you accompany it with a donation. Of course there it is in addition to a regular free chat and more often used to get the streamer's attention

This sounds really fun! It is one of those ideas that when you first hear it doesn't make a lot of sense. I'm not sure how it will handle transaction costs though. It might be better to allow a minimum of $1 to be added in credits and use that to charge for letters.

Lightning network, where are you?

Sounds like something that would make sense to implement on top of Twitch chat. You already have a payment infrastructure tgat allows attaching arbitrary amounts of money to each message, as well as a baseline reading for either free or sub-only($5/month) chat.

Of course you'd need to do it in cooperation with an established Twitch partner. Can't just create a new channel and start charging.

Looks like telegraph commercial codes are poised and ready to make a comeback! (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_code_(communication...)

MrBeast just enter the chat. ;)

Nice :) We were just talking about something like this several days ago:


I created something similar but with a smart contract: https://davidwong.fr/FiveMedium/#/

Is there a micropayment service he could have used, to avoid micropayments showing up on a bank statement? Do any such services event exist?

Is this PCI compliant, since CC numbers are typed on his page?

Apparently it uses Stripe, and as long as the dev isn't trying to intercept/store payment info (e.g. in logs), Stripe handles PCI compliance

I thought it might just pretend to charge you, but I typed in some bogus numbers with a valid checksum, and it was rejected.

"letter" seems ambiguous? I thought it meant "message" but it means "character". I'm not a native English speaker though so maybe it's just me.

I can see why that might seem ambiguous, but I've never heard anyone refer to an electronic message as a "letter". A letter is always in physical form.

"Character" has its own ambiguities (am I a character in this chat room?)

I posted a few comments but they didn't show up. Oh well.


No new messages for 45 mins, tried to chat, doesn't work.

Hihihi this is fun and brilliant ! Had the chance to see it working for a few minutes. It doesn't seem to work now, just a blank page. Hello javascript :(

I feel like if a long message I typed doesn't even get wrapped - I'm not getting what I paid for and hence am entitled to a refund.

Plus some damages for my lost time

good luck with that

That'd make a nice cyberpunk billboard in 10 years.

"Spend money to chat with strangers who spend money to chat with strangers." That's a demographic that doesn't deserve my time.

Am I supposed to be impressed? This makes no sense whatsoever. The reminds me of that card game that raised money to dig a hole.

> The reminds me of that card game that raised money to dig a hole.

Honestly, that's quite a compliment.

you're not impressed by cards against humanity? it's a wildly successful company

It's entertaining. It doesn't need to make sense. If you want a sane product with a good business model, well, there's more than enough of that flying around.

thanks I appreciate the compliment :)

... still cheaper than a Slack subscription.

I just get an "application error"

Need to add font enhancement features. Can I pay 2 cents per letter to have the letters animated in fire?

Seems to have gotten a hug of death showing a standard Rails error.

"We're sorry, but something went wrong."

It's dead

I’m curious,how are they processing the micropayments? Wouldn’t transaction fees crush them?

Really strange, typically I'd expect you to have to pay to read, not to be heard.

There's a long history of paying to be heard: advertising.

I hope it was obvious that I was speaking in the context of consuming a service. Why is pedantry so rampant on this site?

I shouldn't but I love the UI of this thing. It's fresh and bold.

drawo.sh obviously wins. Not just because they paid the most. Because its the first ad ive clicked on in ages that gave me exactly what I expected it to. And asked for nothing.

The TLD choice is a missed opportunity. With that idea they should have at least used the ".rich"

More info: https://www.nic.rich/

Jokes aside, this business model is not going to see any kind of wide adoption.

Business idea: corporate email system that offers a limited amount of emails per month, and once the limit gets hit, discounts money from employee's salary.

Add a formula that makes it exponentially more expensive if you add more people to CC.

Problem with corporate mailing hell solved.

That would just mean employees would make every email like 1,000 words long

Well, that would be a clear win, because you would reduce the amount of distraction.

This would result in incessant phone calls.

That's purely hypothetical, of course, because no one would take a job at that company.

> This would result in incessant phone calls.

Make those expensive, too. Or accept people making more phone calls, which is perfectly fine, because you can only call one person at a time.

> no one would take a job at that company

Not if you are already working there, and not if the company sells it as a huge improvement to work productivity and fewer distractions.

If people are already working there, this scheme would be illegal in the US. It would violate the employment contract. It might be illegal in many places regardless.

Anyway, people don't like to start at a baseline and then go down from there. It makes them anxious. A better scheme would be to reward people for short meetings, few or concise emails, etc.

> you can only call one person at a time.

what? In the times where 15 people have phone dailies/dailys?

On traditional phones. Skype shall be banned, of course.

You need to make clickable URLs more expensive!

should have used Lightning Network

To be frank, I don’t get it

Can I use hanzi though?

Looks nice & seems like a fun experiment but can't help thinking that — at scale, this becomes Twitter, where the average person has relatively short messages like now, but Donald Trump gets an unlimited character count…

what ui kit is this?

I custom designed it.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact