I am a bloomer user, when I migrated to using it it was on the premise that I agree to a tax on my collections, what I don't know is whether I'll be able to cram my music streams into a clip's worth
Ironically it's people like me who stream at the lowest bandwidth (3 minutes is 30 megs) and provide the most creativity: creators and music streamers, who will get hit the worse by it because streaming is a way to eventually make 10 bucks for us, not something we can spend 10 bucks on from the get go (it's R220, netflix, which I can't afford, is R99), I've been on lens for over a year and made 15 bucks in total out of thousands of posts, most of it was given to me by two of my friends so far so its technically not network donations.
Gamers on the other hand farm the network by streaming for 12 hours, don't care about their recordings and will probably happily spend 10 bucks to play their 100 dollar game on a stream somewhere for a month, but for the general public the benefit to the website is more 'street cred' than active watchers.
Then there's users like lolnifans who I personally coaxed into moving form youtube, which uses streaming for archival, he'll also be gone. I understand that the suggestion here is that bloomers is not sustainable in its current state, I can't attest to that being true or false since I haven't seen the total revenue generated compared to the cheapest possible ipfs archival costs, I do know that some networks like filecoin provide grants etc, and so does many other crypto projects, so if its really the space that's so expensive, plans can be made to mitigate the cost.
There's may be a lot of users out there who'll fork it out, but users like me will be stuck going back to youtube where the goal is getting sponsors.
teknopath
