Or, I would argue, like if a realtor made more money off of the sale than the person selling the house made.

that is easily true. You buy a house for $500k. A year later, you decide to move. The house's value remains at $500k. Realtor commissions of 6% cost you $30k. You lost $30k on the total transaction, the realtor made $30k (not including the original buy).

Only on HN would I see someone argue that depreciating or stagnant assets are the same thing as a 30% transaction fee. This community is smart enough to be able to tell the difference between a tax on revenue and a tax on profit.

Apple is imposing a tax on revenue that is higher than the revenue that Patreon pulls in from each transaction fee.

There is no equivalent situation in a realtor market. In no world would a realtor sell your house for $500k and then tell you that they deserve a higher cut of the revenue than you do.

Surely the realtor shouldn't work for $0 just because your investment didn't pan out, though?

I don't know if that is a good comparison. Our realtor has spent a lot of hours over the past few years showing us homes and writing up more than a few losing bids. It's not constant attention, but so far it's all unpaid.

One is necessary to have a legal transaction, while the other is rent-seeking. People buy cars all the time without agents. We have excellent websites to educate us about car features and locate cars for sale. Realtors keep their racket going by working with each other to get houses sold, while ignoring FSBO homes. In fact, buyer's agents have a conflict of interest in that they get paid more if you pay more for the house. How people accept this befuddles me.

I’ve never had a realtor suggest an offer price or apply the slightest bit of pressure to offer more. Maybe you should find a new realtor.