>who says that the payout distribution has to follow the power law?

The payout distribution is proportional to the number of subscribers, which follows a power law.

>And even if it does naturally, OnlyFans doesn't have to just let it happen. They could take a bigger cut from the larger accounts, and distribute it such that the payouts are more linear.

How is taking a larger relative cut from the content creators bringing in the most traffic a good (much less optimal) business decision?

If you're a new creator, and you look at this:

https://twitter.com/Aella_Girl/status/1335725267340251137

are you really going to want to start an account on that site? Your comment seems to align with typical capitalist motives: focus on short term gains, ignore everything else.

>are you really going to want to start an account on that site?

If I thought it would benefit me and was worth my time, then yes? Is the implication one shouldn't try to earn extra income because someone else earns more?

>Your comment seems to align with typical capitalist motives: focus on short term gains, ignore everything else.

That's somewhat of an ad hominem. Anyways I'm all ears if you have a superior evidence-based economic model, instead of selling utopia.

> Anyways I'm all ears if you have a superior evidence-based economic model

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32454155

Do you have sources or evidence that this linear payout system can work? Any businesses, platforms, or countries that have successfully used this type of model?

Do you have sources or evidence that this linear payout system wont work?

Nope. But I'm also not the one claiming a new model I've invented will work and should replace the current system. Your claim would be more convincing if you could point to an existing business or platform that uses the linear payout successfully.

Right, because its a brand new model that I created, one that has never existed, or even been imagined before:

https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistribution_of_income_and_weal...

Okay, but that's in the context of the state which can use its monopoly on violence to enforce such a redistribution. How might that work in private organizations? If you think governments should get involved, what do you think of the side effects? Such redistribution is effectively a tax on the top performers and a subsidy for the bottom performers. A popular saying is that "you get more of what you subsidize and less of what you tax". Why should we encourage more people into selling intimate pictures of themselves? Is that a policy that governments should really be pushing? You could argue onlyfan producers have some duty to their community or whatever, but they already pay income taxes. Why must they face additional redistribution compared to lawyers or programmers?

If they do this, won’t they just fracture and drive the larger accounts elsewhere?

If every single user wants to be a soulless robot (pure capitalism), then yes. However if the userbase understands that larger accounts will be subject to larger fees, in order to support smaller accounts, then I would like to think at least some users would support that. Not everything in life has to be decided on a purely selfish basis.

So OnlyFans should pay people to post nudes ? (Rather than providing a place to post pictures and charge other people for them, in case you missed it)

I see this same argument made about Tinder, from guys who can't get laid.

You realize it's just a platform don't you ? Those are real human beings on the other side of that screen. OnlyFans can't choose for the humans on the platform.

Hang on. Capitalism means private ownership of the means of production. It sounds like you are talking about choices made by consumers.

Communist systems have consumers who make choices, too. Soviet citizens were perfectly free to choose which goods to queue up for.