pull down to refresh
Micropayments can solve a LOT of problems, precisely because they INCREASE transaction costs. I talk about this kind of thing on my podcast pretty often. Spam, those stupid text messages I get "from" Donald Trump. So, I would say there is a difference between having to decide on a price when the price is low, and KNOWING that there is a price every time you do things. Clay Shirky has a couple of interesting columns on micropayments, but that was from the early 2000s. I think the argument for micropayments has gotten much stronger, as things get automated. If we increase friction in a system otherwise driven by AI, we change things. Having friction is good, if we are facing a problem of massive actions in parallel by automated agents.
You might be interested in this paper I've been working on to look at how micropayments and posting costs affect behavior on Stacker News
lol, smooth!! Academic networking in the open, me likey
There's a famous Nick Szabo essay "Micropayments and Mental Transaction Costs" in which he suggests that people don't like to think about very small payments because it's too fiddly (that's oversimplifying it, but gets the point across). Yet, this forum is predicated on the idea that users will send micropayments, and indeed, will find the experience enjoyable.
What do you think - can micropayments ever have a low transaction cost when you factor in mental load?