Hacker News Reader

Comment by caseyross | Hacker News Reader

Dating apps are in a weird place because they invariably use a subscription model, which means they're incentivized to provide a long-term drip of temporary and mediocre matches rather than finding each user a single good long-term partner. Incentives could be better aligned through a "reverse subscription" model, in which a user pays nothing until the app finds them someone they'd like to date, whereupon they must then "subscribe" as long as that relationship continues.

View on HN

What? That creates a financial disincentive for long-term dating. Better is to pay a one time bounty when a good match is made

> What? That creates a financial disincentive for long-term dating. Better is to pay a one time bounty when a good match is made

There are larger financial disincentives[1] for long-term dating, and yet people do it regardless.

The idea is actually quite good - if the relationship is not worth $1/m then it probably isn't a good relationship anyway.

[1] I'm assuming you meant a $1/m subscription.

How did you come up with $1 as the market clearing price? At what monthly price point would you decide to dissolve your marriage?

I don't think perpetual subscription pricing is a match-making model folks are interested in--as evidenced by the models that exist today in the market.

I think that the reason bounty-based isn't widespread is that it's too easy to defraud--similar to a subscription house-cleaning service losing customers who go "off-platform".

> How did you come up with $1 as the market clearing price?

I made it up. It could be $5, or more.

> At what monthly price point would you decide to dissolve your marriage?

That's a difficult question, and it varies over the years. For example I paid several dozens of thousands to get out of my first marriage, while I am willing to sacrifice a lot to keep my current wife.

I think the fact that this model is almost purely voluntary from an enforcement PoV means that the couple will pay what they feel is fair: bad relationship and they'd feel no obligation to pay, while a good relationship might make them feel happy to pay for a while after staying together.

I have to disagree on that model. That may work for dudes who aren't confident and can barely make a decent profile. But for guys who can, it would be extremely annoying that I have to pay to attempt to date someone I'm not really that interested in. Vice versa for the women as well. Now you're giving them another reason to not consider you because they have to pay money too.

The solution exists. It's natural selection. Unfortunately a lot of guys (especially in the midwest where I'm in) just do not understand how to game the system. I've been on enumerable dates. I am by all means a loser who peaked in high school then bounced back 9 years later and never even had a real relationship. So how was I successful?

Pictures. With friends, in public, signaling social intelligence, and showing hobbies that interest women. Most guys take just cringy pictures that scream "Not only am I a loser, but I'm so depressed I'm embarrassed to do things in front of other people." That is why no girls want to date them. Even the very low status ones.

Also, being confident and just being capable of holding a conversation is basically required.

You don't understand the problem the parent commenter is talking about. This isn't about who is or isn't successful, it's about incentive structures, and the degree to which dating service providers have an interest in having more or less people find love. Currently, people finding partners and being happy means that dating service providers lose money, which means that they will deliberately show you partners that are less interesting to you, to make sure you keep feeling unhappy and come back to the app for another try.

Your experience actually corroborates this, as most people do not want to do a lot of serial dating, and your advice is all about serial dating.

That's the game. An incentive structure will not fix that.

> I've been on enumerable dates.

That gave me a chuckle and reminded me of my friend's complaint that they were "continuously going on dates"

I know it sounds douchey but it's how to play the game. I just stopped. I lost complete interest in it at this point. My hobbies are more interesting.

The joke is that “innumerable” means “so many I can’t count them”, while “enumerable” means the opposite of that.

> Most guys take just cringy pictures that scream "Not only am I a loser, but I'm so depressed I'm embarrassed to do things in front of other people.

From swiping through dating apps with women, it seems like men in my city at least are trying pretty hard. Most have dating profiles with high-quality pictures of themselves doing interesting things with their friends. I don’t see a lot of the profiles you’re talking about.

I live in the midwest filled with lonely losers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com