maple "mavica" syrup [6502] @mavica_again@computerfairi.es

oh no

I'm actually going to be extremely mad if the narrative becomes "Stripe killed Cohost"

Like, when they announced Artist Alley I looked at Stripe's terms to see what they would or wouldn't allow to see how that went with the Artist Alley rules, and that's when I found the thing about user tipping. Months before the supposed "change".

So when they started saying "Stripe changed their rules", I went out of my way to then look up Stripe's rules on this over the years Cohost has existed.

The type of user tipping system they wanted to implement (where tips were not tied to digital or physical goods) have NEVER been allowed.

Cohost is still blaming the "policy change" from Stripe even though Stripe's policies have never, in the time that Cohost existed, allowed the type of user tipping they wanted to implement.

This is actually the OPPOSITE of doomposting but:

Don't let Cohost make you think that better things aren't possible online. Cohost actually had a better conversion rate than most websites by FAR. People WERE in fact willing to pay for a site that doesn't try to trick them into watching ads or engaging for clicks. They just had a poor business plan. But I've seen posts like "guess nobody's willing to pay to not be the product..." and that's not what happened here at all, people were in fact willing to pay, heck some people were buying extra subscriptions (which functionally did nothing) just to pay MORE.

When cohost shuts down the blame is going to be put on a lot of things. They're going to be described as too good for this world. A plucky little queer co-op that wanted to be ethical and thus capitalism smashed them down.

It's so much more complicated than that. And honestly even my own feelings about it are complicated. This is going to be a long post (probably several long posts), I would almost consider this a pre-post-mortem, this is my feelings on it before it dies to give context to the feelings I'll probably have after.

I don't think cohost set out to run a grift, as much as I'd like to say that. But they also aren't the hippie coop down the street they want to present themselves as. Below is how I see things, I can't promise this is an accurate chronological timeline of events but this is what I've cobbled together from various things they've posted publicly.

- A couple of friends who work for top tech companies get burnt out and want to launch their own startup. Not unusual. At least one of them had already run what looks like a successful startup prior.

- They form ASSC, and post a manifesto, somewhere right at the start of the pandemic (so close to the start that I'm not sure if it was encouraged by the pandemic or not). The manifesto can be summed up as big tech is bad and exploits everyone, and (direct quote) "we think we can do better, by building tools that focus on fair dealing and sustainable growth rather than market dominance".

- Originally they were working on a Patreon alternative, but finding out there was another queer coop run Patreon alternative made them switch gears. Not sure exactly when that happened, but as of the time of the first manifesto, they are still working on this, not Cohost.

- The details get vague on what happens for the next year. At some point they realize they have competition for their current product and move to working on Cohost. But the next Manifesto is about a year after this first one from March 2020.

- The manifesto talks about how they want to retain ownership over what they make, to avoid being beholden to stockholders. Their answer to this is "a friend of ours stepped forward and let us know that they had hit the lottery as an early technical employee at a startup that had succeeded and gone public. the first public announcement we’re ready to make is: we have secured a deal with them for at least a year of operating funding on a non-equity basis". So their funding model day one is, as they say, "taking out a loan, paying it off, and then owning the company free and clear".