260 / 288
Nov 2019

That's such a clear and simple system. Makes me want to actually use Twitch more! Definitely more than Tapas.

That doesn't mean we can't continue to discuss it.

And what do you mean by "free time." Tapas isn't run like ComicFury or pre-NHN Smackjeeves. It's not a couple of friends working on the weekends to give people a community. They're an actual company. A for profit company with employees and investors. They work out of offices in 2 different countries. They've received over $15 Million in investments.

Knowing @Larslaustsen that’s just a lost in translation from Danish.

He means ”when they have the time”

That still means essentially the same thing.

If this is what they claim, an oversight, then they should be making it a priority to fix. An "oversight" that takes so much money away from creators without informing the buyers is a big deal. Pushing it off to whenever they do the dashboard update (which has no timeline beyond sometime in the next year) means they're okay just taking in all that extra money for however many months there are until then. And not informing people about it.

Because that's really all the "fix" it would take: information. No changes needed. Just give proper information to the people spending and receiving money. Problem solved.

Got a point there. .

Isn’t that what Michael said they were going to do though?

Yep. But that might take time. And I think it is a question about patience now.

So to be clear--do you mean you want to get rid of the support system entirely, or that you want to use a different unit than ink for this system?

But Yoon’s statement suggests otherwise

Hmm.. which part? :thinking:

Here is some facts that I wanted to share..

I don't think we have users who purchased $1.99 Ink package for only 100% Support as you thought. I can't share internal data publicly but I wish we could have 100 people purchase lower packages and support creators...

  1. During Inksgivng, we always turn on 1:1200 Ink package to keep ink conversion rate the same because during the event there are many users who purchased ink page for Support. Tapas keeps nothing.

  2. We've already prepared new sale Ink packages(1:1300, 1:1600) for Dec and 1:1300 Ink package for 2020. We didn't know about this thread when we were preparing. When a user purchases these packages and support to creators we will keep 1:1200 anyway.

  3. We have Inksgiving event once or twice a year and ink back to reader. On May Spring Inksgiving we gave back 1.1 M Ink and On Dec 2019 we will give back 4.2 M Ink for Inksgiving 2019. I think if we keep $$, we don't have this event. Even if we keep money that you pointed, we give back to users more than that money anyway.

  4. Many users earned Ink from our Ink Shop. When a user watches a video ad we give them 10 Ink. Our avg video AD cpm (= 1000 plays $4) is less $4 which mean, we lose 5.2 Ink (10 - (4 / 1000 * 1200)) every rewards. Why do we keep this game? Our one of visions is build the best comic community in the world.

As @michaelson said earlier, We're award of the the Ink system is not for Support system so there are some difficulties to make all sense. And Tapas has been trying hard to keep our community. We keep running/building community using this.

15M for 8 years = per year 1.8 M = per month 150K. and every month we pay 20K for server hosting.. + office rent + etc..
100K for 20~30 people is not enough..

Tapas needs to make money but we don't make money to make a hidden fees and from community. We invest/donate money/efforts to keep building/running Tapas community. We don't use our community for our business. Instead we try to live together.

Please also try to understand what Tapas has been trying/doing for community. Not just pointing out a bad thing and emphasize. I'm pretty sure we've listened our community whenever they say something. We're not evil...

We will ship it soon.

Thank you,

-do you mean you want to get rid of the support system entirely

No.

I think so but nothing decide yet. When we revamp current support program, we will focus on having the same value of Ink like what we had before (2014~2015).

Sorry for making you confused.

Now that was some serious answering.
I believe there is a great future to come in Tapas.

Thanks from the extra info;

I'd just like to point out that for me (and from what I understood, several persons on this thread), the issue is not so much the % of the fee taken by Tapas, but rather the fact it's impossible to know what the fee is when we buy.
I'd say, personally, I don't really care that much for the promotions and ink given back, if I don't know what I bought to begin with.

I'm a business owner with an unstable customer base. I know the importance of a solid income that allows to look ahead.
I'd simply like to know how much I support Tapas and how much I support creators (directly) when I buy ink.

Me too. But we can't explain everything to Ink purchasers when they buy Ink. Ink was not designed for Support program but readers buy for both unlock content and support. So I think if there are new options for only Support, it would remove this issue? Right? Readers can still buy/earn Ink but if readers only want to support they can use the new options. the value is same. Support $N -> take some fees -> revenue $(N - fees) and readers can find this information somewhere or when they support.

hahahaha it's not.. sorry if you feel that way.. I felt bad because I designed this system so want to fix the problem and there was any bad intended this issue because there was no support option when I designed it. :sweat:

Thank you for saying this.. I'll try my best!

Do you think a second system would be able to simplify everything? I suspect if you guys would be able to find a solution that is easily explained and has a straight forward payout structure, there would be little left in terms of confusion.

Thanks for all these answers, Yoon. It may not feel that way when you spend time here on the forums, but most of us appreciate what you guys do lol

That was what I read in all of your answerings. That’s so real and you are not hiding.
This is a community and we live here, for better and for worse.

We support
We cheer
We fail
We help

your transparency is greatly appreciated.
and if i'm being honest, what you said worries me greatly...

Why do we keep this game? Our one of visions is build the best comic community in the world.

anyone remembers Inkblazers?

Inkblazers shut down on February 1, 2015 as the creators could no longer financially support the continuation of the site

while it is very generous of you to give a lot to the community even if at a loss on your end, i really hope you guys have future-proof plans from keeping this ship from sinking.
I wasn't into comics when Inkblazers was around, but i rememer so many creators where hit greatly by the loss of this platform. Maybe allow creators to purchase ad spaces (that shuffles so everyone can get a fair chance) and this way, you can make some profit and both parties are happy?

anyway i digress.
thanks once again and wishing you guys the best.

You know. I’m into Ko-Fi and I’m fine with Paying 6$ months For special features.

Why can’t I pay 6$ to Tapas for having my own locked space where readers can pay to see my ekstra stuff?

The marked is there. Just pick it up.

This is exactly my question. There are many ways of fixing the system that would simplify it on both ends. It really is needlessly complicated on both ends. And it doesn't help the fact that there is no clarity of even the basics in the TOS or anywhere. Not even the simple statement of once it's in a creator's hand it's a 1:1200 ratio.

@Yoon This is a matter of transparency and clarity to users on the basics of the system.

But if you want to actually change the system, completely dropping the gamified pricing structure would be of great benefit to users and creators alike. Like was mentioned above, Twitch is a great example. When buying bits, the fee is applied at purchase and everyone knows that giving 100 bits is giving $1. A clear and easy to understand system. One that allows users to know how much they really are giving.

My concerns here are two fold. The first is that the system is needlessly complicated to the point that from the outside it looks intentional. The second is that it took this much effort just to get anything close to a straight answer. It wasn't until I put money into the system and provided proof that anyone budged on just repeating the vague things already in the TOS and "what-ifs" based on fees and the like.

If you genuinely cared about your users and their experience, you would consider a more streamlined system. Holding to the current pricing structure means you're okay with obfuscating details from your users and leading supporters into thinking they're giving more than they really are.

That I will do too, it is a great idea

Ko-Fi really is the best alternative. They don't take a single fee from the transactions (and only paypal fees are removed), and that paltry $6/mo gets you so many awesome features. AND the ability to give once or subscribe monthly. Plus their website is just nice.

It makes me so happy that they're getting more popular.

Our goal is to creates sustainable ways to generate revenue for both the platform and the creators. Right now, we have a number of different monetization mechanisms in place that help us pave the way towards sustainability and profitability. I don't really see a scenario where I would be comfortable selling ad space on the platform to creators, as I also don't see this as a sustainable form of revenue that can grow. Plus it feels kind of wrong.

I wish it were as simple as that - features such as that are quite robust and difficult to build. For us to build a monetization tool for creators we would need to replicate it for web, iOS, Android, and likely mobile web so that there is parity across platforms. This is a tall order for many things, but we hope to create more revenue generating tools for creators that we can scale out. Those are currently in the works and we hope to announce them down the road.

Agree, and recommend creators explore every option possible - whether it's a Ko-Fi, Support Program, Patreon, PayPal donations, etc.


As for the rest of the talking points, we are still in the process of looking at short term and long term solutions to the questions and concerns brought up in this topic.

For the short term we will be deploying messaging around the creator dashboard and revenue dashboard about the transaction and exchange rates that are applied. For the long term, we hope to disclose more information when we come to a conclusion internally and feel confident enough to announce and move forward with.

2 months later

It's now been 3 months since this was stated. I cannot find any chances made to anything about Ink or the phrasing around it. What is your projected timeline for these changes? On what scale is your "short term"? When it comes to businesses, one would assume that would mean "within the quarter."

So are we looking at by the end of Q1, or is this "short term" more "we'll put it off until you forget about it"?

Apologies for the delay. I will double check on the deployment of the messaging and follow up with you.

I know this a shift of topic. [Free Ink].

That must a whole different situation.

I really would like to get small amounts of free ink (from a wide set of people). It shows a reader is willing to put in time for the joy of reading.

New update should be shipping soon w/ web 2.0 updates. Apologies for the delay.

Maybe I'm just missing it but is there an explanation now that the page changed?

Now that the update is live, there is precisely zero change to anything around the text on the support dashboard OR the ink shop. There is no updated information in the terms or on the help pages.

The help article on "How to Make Money" still says:

When readers use Ink for Support, roughly 85% goes to creators (after any 3rd party fees) and the remaining 15% helps fund Tapas.

And in trying to find if anything had been added to the terms, I found this little gem:

You acknowledge that any virtual currency you receive on any of Tapas Media's platforms is not "real" currency or any type of real world financial instrument. Furthermore it is not redeemable for any sum of money from Tapas Media at any time.

Which directly contradicts the fact that 1) you are paying creators with this virtual currency for their ad revenue 2) you have a dashboard that automatically converts it to a real world currency, and 3) you do, supposedly, pay "real" currency in exchange for the virtual currency.

But the important part is, mostly to stress the point, there were no updates to any user facing or user accessible information regarding ink, with the web 2.0 update.

24 days later

I think this a new thing? It looks new to me?

I think so? Don't remember seeing that line before :open_mouth:

18 days later

Local crackpot alert, here to necromancy this thread because it never got any definitive responses from staff and I have new information to present.

3

So, I was supported with 1000 ink today. All well and good. I made 83 cents.

(this is the only ink support I've gotten in April so far so that's how I know I can depend on this being an accurate figure).

But uh, are we not going to talk about the obvious inflation that's been created on Tapas' part to make ink seem more valuable than it is?

Over on LINE Webtoons, $1 = 10 coins. That's how it's advertised in the shop. They give that $1 value without having to make you jump through hoops to do the math to figure it out. Clearly and concisely advertised. And the bonus coins you get for buying in bulk do not affect the base price. 200 coins will always equal $20 regardless of whether or not you get that bonus 18 coins that comes with that bundle. This makes sense to any old Joe who knows Roman numerics and basic math because 10 coins x 20 dollars = 200 coins.

10 coins will buy you 2 episodes priced at 5 coins each. Simple. Your $1 dollar just bought two episodes.

BTW, every series sells their episodes for 5 coins. They can do this because, from my understanding of LINE's model, they expect every episode to be a certain length (something like being at least 30 panels long). They have prerequisites to what makes an episode that can be sold.

So you know that no matter what you spend those 10 coins on, if you go for the bare minimum of $1, you'll be able to buy 2 episodes of whatever comic you want.

Simple, direct, concise language.

Meanwhile, on Tapas, 1200 ink (what Michael is claiming the $1 value is) will buy you around 3.4 episodes of, let's say MNEMOSYNE, so let's say 3 episodes on Tapas priced at 350 ink each, with still a little ink left over to spare to either save aside or tip to a creator (150 ink, yaaay. So like, 10 cents without the fees deducted lmao).

But wait... that's MNEMOSYNE. What about The Lady and Her Butler OH MY GOD

Okay, what about Thick As Thieves-

OKAY SO I guess that $1 = 1200 ink conversion fee can get you either 3 episodes or it can get you 2, who tf knows? Not the consumer because they're being told absolutely nothing about what their money is worth and what it turns into on the other side ((((:"""" Can we not just, idk, expect that every episode should be made consistent to fit certain guidelines so that they can all be priced consistently as well so consumers will know what they're getting when they turn their money into ink? And think about how this is potentially screwing over Premium creators :grimacing:

So comparing Premium to LINE creators, we can say that maybe some Premium creators make more than LINE... but not all of them. Meanwhile, LINE creators know their episodes will always sell for 50 cents. You know how I know it's 50 cents? Because they tell us that with the simple conversions and upfront communication. LINE Webtoons episodes, at 5 coins per episode, are priced at 50 cents an episode (because 10 coins = $1). Even though that's not a lucrative cost either (on its own), you see how much easier that was to figure out? All because LINE doesn't hide its conversion rates behind inflation and questionable conversions.

Aaand speaking of questionable conversions...

According to Michael, $1 is worth 1200 ink, which would make sense if I was gifted 1000 ink and pulled out 83 cents on the other side.

But wait, 1600 ink costs $2 in the ink shop-

1

So what in the world is it worth?

So are we saying, mathematically speaking, $1 is actually worth 800 ink? ($2 = 1600 / 2 = 800 ink per $1). Do you see the issue this causes? People are giving pennies when they think they're giving dollars. And that's all still before those fees come out, the month of April is a perfect time to really get down to brass tacks with the conversion math on it all because for once, we're not having to take those fees into account. So a reader buys, for example, $2 worth of ink and donates 800 of it thinking they're giving their favorite creator a dollar ... nope, you've just given them, like, 60 cents. And that's with the fees removed; after fees it's undoubtedly closer to 40-50.

My main concern is that Tapas ink is more inflated than the Mexican peso and it seems to be built that way on purpose to give readers and contributors the sense that they're contributing more than they are. Contributing 1000 ink sure sounds like a lot, especially to those who are primarily watching ads/filling out surveys and get anywhere from 4-10 ink for each one (1000 ink will feel like a lot to anyone who endures that level of MMO-style grinding), but it's really not that much (83 cents, in fact) and the inflation seems to be intentionally creating this idea of wealth that simply isn't there. Add to the fact that because you can't just pay $1 (the base price is always set to $2), and the conversion rate is obviously dependent on the amount you buy (without there being a static "base rate"), no general consumer really puts in the time and effort required to really dismantle it and see what their money is actually worth on the other side. The one thing Tapas could have copied from LINE that would have made sense - a far simpler conversion rate of $ = ink that's honest and direct and clear on the surface without any tacked on nonsense that makes the math and conversion rates go wonky.

Maybe I've just missed some things, though. My math/logic could be wrong, I wouldn't put it past me, but that 1000 ink I got translating to 83 cents has been on my mind since I woke up to the notification this morning and I felt it a perfect opportunity to get discussion on this going again. Especially considering there are valid questions/concerns from the OP that still haven't been answered after over a month of silence. Even if my math/logistics regarding the specifications of ink = $$$ is wrong, it doesn't change the fact that these concerns that OP had, and I have, as well as many others, exist for a reason, and much of it boils down to Tapas' advertising and communication about what ink is actually worth to consumers on the front end and how it translates to creators on the back end.

Top that off with my biggest concern that staff still hasn't cleared up a lot of questions regarding this despite assuring they would. So... yeah. Let's not see this thread die, please. People need to be informed of what choices they're making and what they're really contributing when they give someone ink. I don't want to see these valid concerns and questions go unanswered, hence the mild necromancy.

To make one final thing clear, I'm not mad that 1000 ink only translates to 83 cents on the backend, nor am I mad that Tapas built a broken cryptocurrency system that's overinflated and has some sketchy conversion systems that aren't entirely honest on the front end.

I'm just mad that you, Tapas, keep lying to us about it.

2

Hear Hear! Good show old bean!

(Awaits tradition Tapas response built around "proprietary" reasons)

I'm still going to give @michaelson a benefit of a doubt as I'm assuming the avenues he has to go through to get the information have been disrupted by the pandemic and things have been delayed. I just hope he and other staff are keeping an eye on this thread and not ignoring it completely.

yeah, my understanding from what Micheal mentioned earlier in this thread (I don't remember where) is that the ink has a code that remembers how much you spent for it (so whether you bought in bulk or not)--so the ink you have is all worth different amounts, although you can't really tell. The fact that apparently that's no longer a thing and they're saying 1 cent is always 12 ink is what's confusing to me.

Either way I wish there was an option to just use money if you wanted to.

Okay - and this isn't a personal jab, it's a legitimate question - why are we tagging Michael then? The fact of the matter is that Michael is simply no longer the "main guy" when it comes to these questions. He was back in the day, when you and I and many others were still starting out with the platform, Premium was Prime and the ink system was but a glimmer in the distance. At this point turning to Michael is more a force of habit than actually helpful because, judging from his responses on this topic as well as others, he's just not the guy with all the answers (or legal ability to give them out). And it would be unfair for us to expect that from him. He's the Editor-in-Chief, for crying out loud, I don't think the Ink system and how it functions is exactly in his job description. It would be like asking the shift supervisor at Starbucks to fix the plumbing in the building; I wouldn't blame the shift supervisor for the leaky toilet. My concerns with this (and the many other issues I've pointed out in the past) aren't aimed solely at Michael and I really wish people would stop assuming they are just because he happens to be the forum-facing guy. It ends up translating to "An issue with Tapas is an issue with Michael" when that simply isn't the case and never has been.

So all I'm asking is, where are the people who can answer these questions without having to go through those extra avenues? I understand that the forums don't necessarily reflect the community as a whole, there are only about 40-50 of us who use them regularly, so accessing the forums may not be a top priority for the staff at large, but that's merely due to the fact that the forums are desktop only and aren't advertised. If there's this much constant concern/questioning among 40-50 people, could you imagine what would happen if the forums were accessible from the front end and open to the thousands who use the app every day? :grimacing: It's why I stand so firmly by the idea that Tapas really needs someone who's trained in proper PR management.

And that's horrifying if true lol But again, I can't exactly take everything Michael says as hard fact because he's not the guy who developed the system. What we know now is this:

What's confusing is that if 1 cent is going to equal 12 ink, okay, that's fine, at least we have a base rate (although it's a silly one making it per cent rather than per dollar, w/e)... so why then, by that logic, imply that $1 will equal 1200 ink (12 ink x 100 cents per dollar = 1200 ink per dollar) only to then advertise that $2 will net you 1600 ink? (rather than 2400 ink if we doubled that $1 value to $2 with the ink increasing respectively with it). That implies that ink is worth 800 per $1 on the front end, not 1200 per $1.

I can't help but feel half of these issues wouldn't be issues if Tapas would just simplify it to $1 = 1000 ink. And offer those $1 base prices at the minimum vs. the $2 one that's mucking up the base values (or at LEAST display that conversion rate per dollar rather than per cent). Though I understand that transaction fees/Apple/Google fees could be playing into the reasons why they'd want to start selling at $2 rather than $1 (like how they help you avoid constant PayPal fees by requiring you be at $25 min before you can pay out) it's the $2 = 1600 ink vs. $1 = 1200 ink that's fogging it all up.

This is a very interesting topic. I bought a lot of Ink to give to my favorite creators and now I'm wondering if I was just throwing pennies at them.

It just depends on what you and Tapas define as 'a lot'. As I said in my post from earlier today, 'a lot' can be as 'low' as 1000 ink (aka 83 cents lmao) if you've been spending hours grinding through ads and surveys to reach that number (seeing as how you only get 4-10 ink at most per ad/survey, yeah, hitting 1000 can take a shitload of time so it can inflate 1000 to feeling like 'a lot') or as 'high' as 40,000 ink if you actually buy from the ink shop (or just save up for that much) which, according to Tapas' ink shop, translates to roughly $50 (for $50 you get 40,000 ink + 20,000 bulk bonus ink)

But again, this highlights those discrepancies in the ink shop, how ink is actually valued, and what we're actually giving to creators in terms of monetary value. Is 40,000 ink actually worth $50 on the other end, or is it only worth $50 because the Tapas Ink shop says it is? (like how it 'says' that the $2 value = 1600 ink even though the value of $1 = 1200 ink directly contradicts that). Will that 40,000 ink, if you gave ALL of it to a single creator in the form of support ink/tipping, translate to $50, before you subtract Tapas' cut? And is that bonus 20,000 ink taken into account when determining that monetary value?

It's all very concerning for both readers and creators alike, because readers (such as yourself, as well as anyone else who wants to support their favorite creators and comics) should know what they're actually giving their favorite creators on the front end in tangible dollar/cent amounts, and creators should know what to expect post-translation (with or without Tapas' fees involved) on the back end.

Anyway, I'm going to try not to comment on this any further until staff (hopefully) addresses it, just so that the point of my post doesn't get muddled along the way or I don't end up making too many assumptions on Tapas' part when replying to your guys' posts. Anything I respond to from this point forward will simply be to clarify points I made in my original post that might have gotten lost in translation or just might not make sense.

Ah, I see so I was throwing pennies (or .01's) ...

Yes, I'm hoping someone from the staff clearly outlines the Ink to $$ exchange.