Exactly. If this were implemented, it would affect me one of two ways*

1) The cost variation would be small enough that I'd ignore it.

2) The cost would sometimes be high enough to dissuade me from taking a bike where I wanted to go, in which case I would quit the program completely. I don't want to have to change my travel plans at the last minute. Even if the extra cost were non-trivial but acceptable, the mental overhead of having to decide whether it's worth it would make the program much less appealing.

* If I were actually participating in a bike share program. Currently I own my own bike, but I could see using a bike share program in the future.

I think what he means by "negative cost" is that you actually pay people (in credit), to take the bike to the desired station.

Yes that's what I understood as well, although that's just one component of "dynamically price". And even that isn't really going to work. That's equivalent to just paying someone outright to rebalance bikes, except it's ad-hoc, only moves one bike at a time, and significantly complicates the process.

I agree that making money through riding a bike from a low to high demand station would be an edge case, but I don't see how it adds significant complication. You just list what the price would be at different stations if they return the bike there, with some being refunds.

Which is what they do already, except they pay employees/vehicles/fuel.

The providers have some philosophical problem with paying regular people to do the very same.

Once they overcome this, the system will work a whole lot better and more profitably.