How would structure your dating app to be different? Presumably you’d have expenses.

Maybe you could make it open source? But sounds like you’re gonna have a hard time staying ahead of abuse. Not to mention attracting enough people for the app to be useful is gonna be difficult if you’re not spending money on marketing.

Maybe you could have a monthly fee? But then who’s gonna use it? And there’s already plenty of established sites like that.

Well maybe you could have a virtual equivalent of buying someone a drink? Ah yes, we end up back on roses. Is it perfect? No. But doesn’t sound like any option is.

Honestly, as terrible as these features are for these male users, I feel that they are barely scratching the surface of what can be profitably done to monetize the thirst/desperation of lonely, unattractive men. I don't know what these new terrible features could be, but it really feels like very little has been tried. There are probably much, much darker patterns that these dating sites can use. I mean, we're talking about one of the most powerful bodily urges that exists, plus an increasingly desperate customer base with seemingly no way to satisfy it. Surely this path goes deeper into the woods.

> I don't know what these new terrible features could be, but it really feels like very little has been tried.

OnlyFans is already doing it all .

The problem with most relationship-orienter dating apps (eg not necessarily Tinder or Grindr although not everyone uses those apps the same way) is that the monetization is based on maximizing and prolonging user engagement. In other words, they have a financial incentive for you to remain single.

I've thought a bit about how to prevent that in a way that isn't too easily gamed while aligning the incentives of users and apps.

My first thought was that users of the app pay some high-but-not-obscene sign up fee (let's say $250, but knowing how dating apps work this number would probably move up and down based on an area's COL, user's demographics like are and gender, profession, W-2 scans, etc). After x years, if the user is still single they get their money back (base this off of marriage records, app activity, or whatever). The app can invest the money in the meantime, so even if most users end up in relationships before the deadline they can still generate returns (IIRC this is actually how insurance companies get a lot of their revenue).

I think if there's one lump sum people are gonna be more inclined to game the system, so one variation is to make it more of a trickle of money. eg every time a pair of matched users verify that they've gone on a date, they get $10. Enough money that they might bother logging it in the app, but not so high (hopefully) that people would go on fake dates.

However I think due to the additional friction these options still wouldn't be very successful. The low barrier to entry is part of why apps get critical mass and become successful.

> How would structure your dating app to be different?

Honestly I dont know. But here's an idea that came to mind.

Men pay per swipe. (men tend to over swipe and inundate women with messages, make them not.

Perhaps also women receive a token amount for showing up to a date, not ghosting as reported by the man. (Ghosting is a real thing unfortunately. It being a token amount means no sane women would endanger herself to get the token, but it might be enough to say, cover the first drink or part of the uber ride there) .

The current political climate probably wouldn't allow functionality required to optimize the cisgender heterosexual experience. (Because that would require taking a stance about gender differences and designing systems that are suboptimal for other dating patterns) .

Sounds like sending this kind of rose to a woman who already gets lots of attention is futile for the reasons you list. But it might actually be an effective gesture towards a woman who’s not in the top 50% of the site because it signals that you’re not a player who’s simply messaging all the below-average women, and that your score is probably aligned with hers.

And that only works if you're the only ones sending her roses, which is information that female participant is unlikely to share. They're are probably other suitors sending roses as a signal of wealth to these less attractive women in a bid to compensate for they're own lack of attractiveness.

> not in the top 50% of the site

You will get presented this match for free and message her without a rose.

I suppose you could send a rose voluntarily to someone who you presume does not get roses in an attempt to exploit the fact they dont get roses... which is slightly condescending xD .

Sending gifts to not-very-attractive women is a time-tested mating strategy for the slightly lazy male contingent.

"gifting" women you barely know is a terrible strategy. This is the best way to land yourself a gold digger or some other undesirable. It signals to her that you are beneath her and are trying to buy her affection.

On one first date a woman I had been talking to for a week texted me late at night. I told her to show up at my house and for her to bring a bottle of red wine. The next morning she is telling me a recent dating story. A guy took her out for a fancy meal. He spent $120 on her and then he got pissed after the meal when she wouldn't kiss him.

I have some success and plenty of failure too when it comes to dating. There is so much bad dating advice out there for men. I feel bad for the men that are in the dark and being taken advantage of.

I will venture a risky post to say, the gifting strategy is probably most endearing to women who receive little attention. This is a mostly mutually exclusive set with Gold Diggers.