Patreon but it's self-hosted so you just connect it to some payment providers on your own 🤔
@Gargron yeah, the whole selling point of Patreon in the first place (IMHO) was "we bundle up a whole bunch of tiny payments to creators you want to support so there's only one transaction fee", and now here they are putting a transaction fee on every single pledge, we may as well just all go back to the 'Tip me on Paypal' widgets.
@anthracite @Gargron It could be that they're doing this because of credit card processing fees. Shops dislike small credit card payments for precisely this reason, and so should Patreon creators, because taking $1 donations by credit card is a fairly wasteful affair. Those are microtransactions, and credit cards aren't really designed for that.
@Gargron @anthracite I see that they're charging 2.9% + $0.35. That doesn't strike me as outrageous for covering the processing fees. Credit card processors often have such pricing schemes and Patreon has to cover the cost and turn a profit somehow. They were doing that retrospectively before, toward the creators. Now they are doing it in advance, toward the contributors. It's not clear to me that they're turning a bigger profit this way.
@thor @Gargron yes, here’s a blog post by someone else who broke out Excel https://www.pretty-terrible.com/funny-money-patreon-style/
@thor @Gargron see that’s the thing, the whole initial value proposition of Patreon was to make micro payments viable by aggregating them. One charge to patrons would be split up into like 20 $1 pledges. But now P is applying a transaction fee of their own to every pledge, and suddenly we’re right back where we started before they showed up.
@anthracite @Gargron And on the way, they discovered that it cost them more to run such an operation than they anticipated. They're probably not very happy about this either. They have basically discovered that they're no more efficient than other payment processors, who probably incur similar costs, thus the fee levels. Startups exist because "someone had a simple solution", but often, that someone just didn't understand the scope of the problem.
@Gargron @anthracite @ocdtrekkie They were raising series B funds with investors as of 2016. This suggests to me that they were still running at an operational deficit at that time. Before the fee change, they were set to collect $7.5M in fees in 2018. They have an estimated 72 employees. Silicon Valley wages are ~$100,000/yr. That's $7.2 million.
@ocdtrekkie @anthracite @Gargron They know this. That's why they had to word their announcement like they did. Because customers aren't interested in why. They just demand that the problem gets fixed. But over at Patreon, humans, often prone to error, made mistakes and got the numbers wrong, and now they have to fix the mess somehow. Happens all the time.
@thor @ocdtrekkie @Gargron except for the part where the presentation is “we’re changing fees to give MORE MONEY to CREATORS” instead of “our current fees ain’t working to keep a roof over our heads, here’s how we’re changing things”.
*shrug* we’ll see how it turns out, especially once KS’s Drip opens up early next year...
@ocdtrekkie @anthracite @thor @Gargron even if they do change back to the old model, there's no guarantee that patrons will return. I see a $1 sub as almost an impulse purchase; you saw something they did once that was cute, you signed up, and you're content to let it run at that level because it's no hassle. causing that same situation to reoccur isn't easy, but doing it after being burned once like this will make it nearly impossible.
@tomas it used to be payment processor fees + 5% to Patreon + lower processor fees on the way out, now it’s just one processing fee that presumably includes P's cut and is a LOT bigger for people doing multiple small donations.
They used to make micropayments viable by bundling them, now they’re killing them with this new transaction fees.
As to why we don’t just publish account numbers... transaction fees are generally stupid high on small transactions, also patreon's ability to track that you made 5 things this month and ding patrons for donation*5 is damn handy.
@tomas yes, they are - anything besides handing someone a handful of cash incurs fees.
Oh, and if we give out the account and routing numbers, then there's nothing but trust to keep the person who has it from swiping every single dollar in the account.
American financial institutions kind of all suck ass.
@tomas Yeah it's pretty fucked up, isn't it? If someone gets these numbers and abuses them, it's YOUR fault for defending insufficiently against "identity theft", too, not the bank's fault for "having total garbage security". The banks spend a lot of money buying politicians to keep from having to, like, set up systems that have the faintest whiff of security; we have absolutely no functional limits on how much a corporation can donate to a politician's campaign here. And for what it's worth that lack of a limit probably explains almost anything that looks utterly insane about the US. Please invade us and save us from ourselves if you ever get a chance. It's pretty crazy.
Google tells me the US does not participate in IBAN, so they don't work.