Or more precisely, it's good for the party operating at scale and bad for the individual participant. This is the opposite of how most financial schemes handle unpredictable events: they put the risk on the party that can absorb the risk by letting it be lost in the noise, and take it away from the party that cares deeply about small amounts. Insurance companies will charge everyone the same amount, whether it's a customer that will ultimately bring them a bit of revenue or ultimately cost them a lot of money: the price for the individual customer is fixed. A plane flight costs the same amount of money whether there are strong tailwinds and the plane flew cheaper than expected or whether there was bad enough weather that the flight had to land somewhere for refueling, and the cost of the occasional rare disruption is built into the ticket.

This trick is mathematically nice, but there isn't really a reason for a consumer to prefer it to even paying $.02, unless the consumer is also paying at scale (in which case you can just aggregate the transfer and not use this scheme at all).

This is only needed for micropayments so a buffer of like $5-10 could be fine if you could somehow otherwise otherwise verify the user / monetize the relationship. Best way I can think of that preserves privacy is to serve image only ads through the payment network in an appropriately boxed window every time you add a tip to the randomized micropayment scheme.

Maybe, someday, micropayments will be good.

And if the problem is that even simple payment complicates things, complicated (probabilistic maybe or maybe not) payment isn't going to make it better.