You're right that it's apples and oranges. The way I see it: paywatcher solves verification, QBitFlow solves the billing lifecycle (authorization, recurring charges, cancellation, merchant dashboard). Different layers of the same stack.
Which actually makes me wonder — have you thought about integrations? A developer could use paywatcher for one-time payment confirmation and QBitFlow for subscriptions, depending on the use case. Or we could even use paywatcher as a verification layer under the hood for chains we don't natively support yet.
To your question: I think the answer is "both, depending on the builder." Someone spinning up a weekend project with a tip jar wants a primitive. Someone running a SaaS with MRR tracking and automated renewals wants the full stack. The market is big enough for both approaches.
Either way — cool to see someone else building in this space. Would be happy to chat offline if you ever want to explore how the tools could complement each other.
The primitive vs. full-stack split maps well to how developers actually buy tools: start with the smallest thing that solves the immediate problem, then add layers as complexity grows. Tip jar → PayWatcher. SaaS with MRR → QBitFlow. Both valid.
Happy to explore the integration idea — [email protected] if you want to take it offline.
I think we're solving different slices of the same problem. QBitFlow wraps authorization + verification in smart contracts. What I ended up building is just the verification primitive: "did X USDC land at Y address?" — no smart contract, no percentage fee, $0.05 flat.
For someone who wants a turnkey checkout flow, QBitFlow makes sense. For someone who already handles their own payment UX and just needs reliable confirmation, that's where paywatcher.dev fits.
On the $10k payment: $0.05 vs $75 is a pretty different cost structure. But it's also a different scope — apples and oranges to some degree.
Would genuinely be curious what others here prefer: full-stack payment handling or composable primitives?