Quote from: altcoinUK on July 08, 2015, 07:35:36 PM

Quote from: barabbas on July 08, 2015, 06:24:17 PM

@atlcoinUK

There was a mistake I hadn't seen in my post -already edited- by which a 2 was posted instead of a 4.

But, first of all, when you or anyone talks about 95%, we all know this is chimeric, right? There are no charges, no fees involved? The only business in the world, that I know of, that functions with 5% or lower margin of profit is the trillions-dollar credit card business... and it works because the REAL margins are actually exorbitant. So let's call it like it is and admit that there wouldn't be even viable, let alone produce anything for development or just static implementation, with 5%... that's not even considering the piling up of losses (against what investment?) in the many months, perhaps years, it would take to achieve some kind of significant revenue flow.

But even if that paltry 5% would make it viable, the "model" used for the 70% calculation, was the one the guy from Rumania and "his studio" would use in which he would keep 10% clean, use 15% for infrastructure and pay the models 70%.

I said several times in my previous posts that your concern about the viability of recruiting top models very valid and the team should think about that issue. However, I think your numbers are incorrect.

Regarding the 95% is chimeric, actually it is not. I did the research on the subject and I think the calculation of the team is correct. As the developers said, the main cost in the GadgetNet's business plan regarding to live video streaming is the server and internet traffic. Please use the sample of a 30 minutes long, 50 viewers group show that generates US$ 500 revenue. You will find in the numbers that the infrastructure cost of that video streaming session at 4 Mbit per second HD streaming (Netflix qualify 4 Mbit/s as HD) is less than US$ 3.00. That particular session generates around 45~50 GB traffic and the infrastructure cost is on a leased server is less than US$ 3.00, less than 1% of the revenue. Can they pay out the 95%. Obviously they can. A community member who broadcasts the show can make on such a show US$ 22.00. If the DAC broadcast the live show then the DAC can make that money.
Moreover - and I think you completely ignore this revenue source -, the developers posted here that an important factor in their monetization plan is the advertisement revenue. Does it make sense to expect revenue from advertisement? I think it does. Amazon invested 1 Billion USD in twitch.tv last year, and the justification for the investment was the advertisement revenue opportunities from game streaming. The 100 Billions USD strong adult market advertisement is similarly a serious revenue source opportunity. I think the advertisement revenue should be taken into account when you validate the business plan.

Regarding the random Romanian guy, for some reason, I am not sure why, the base of your calculation is not the publicly available data which indicate that big sites pay out an average 50% (40,000 models worldwide receive an average 50% of their revenue), but no, you don't use this figure for the calculation. You use the figure of a random Romanian guy's forum based offer which was advertised here. You use the 70% figure of the random Romanian guy instead of using the 50% figure which is the base of the assumptions of the business plan. If you would use the 50% (which is the average percentage 40,000 models worldwide receive) you would get the figure what the developers talk about and I posted previously by referring to the 10k vs 19k sample.

Thank you for the breakdown but, unfortunately, that speaks only of the bare costs of the broadcast, not of the location, not even the most basic laptop. And, of course, you don't count on any administrative or organizational expenses, let alone a physical address, fiscal or otherwise. The DAC, I don't care where is registered, will be required to file a considerable amount of paperwork, hold records and books. And that can only be done -and accepted by governments- by professionals. And that costs money, all of it. Money that cannot be covered with 5%. Or 10%. And, I repeat, there's a very significant time span in which those expenses have to be sustained, whatever the margins, at significant cost (and I still can't figure out where that seed money is going to come from).

Amazon -and any other huge company- not only invest millions in advertising but they actually collect millions from it. If you were to spend $1 million in advertising jizzmo.com -or the other one- it would actually make sense to expect some advertising revenue; as it is, totally as chimeric as the 95% pay out.

I used the random Rumanian guy because it is the model that actually makes some sense. And because it was considerably above -for the models- what the average is. As you can easily imagine, if someone could pay those models -someone with an established business already- 60 or 70% instead of the average 50, they would get the cream of the crop and most of them would sign with them. Why don't they do it? Perhaps because the business model, without keeping 50-40% of revenues isn't viable, you think? After all 30% of 1 million is significantly more than 50% of half a million... Maybe they haven't thought it thoroughly, but I am going to assume that they have it down pat to the last dollar.

As for the models doing it while keeping other platforms, wouldn't that be counter-productive? The whole point of getting established or successful models would be to bring with them their current constituency for they would hardly benefit from a no-traffic website. A bit confused by this potential scenario...