Patreon Hits Donors With New Fees, Angering Creators (venturebeat.com) 143
Patreon's changing their fee structure to make donors cover payment-processing fees (standardized to 2.9%) -- plus an additional 35 cents for every pledge. Long-time Slashdot reader NewtonsLaw reports that Patreon's users are furious:
Despite Patreon's hype that this is a good thing for creators, few of these actually seem to agree and there's already a growing backlash on social media... many fear that their net return will be lower because the extra fees levied on patreons are causing them to either reduce the amount they pledge or withdraw completely... For those patrons supporting only a few creators the effect won't be large, but for those who make small donations to many creators this could amount to a hike of almost 40% in the amount charged to their credit cards. Without exception, all the content creators I have spoken to would have:
a) liked to have been consulted first
b) wanted the option to retain the old system where they bear the cost of the fees.
As a content creator, I've already seen quite a few of my patreons reducing their pledge and others canceling their pledges completely -- and I understand why they are doing that.
"Everyone hates Patreon's new fee," writes VentureBeat, adding "Many creators are saying it's unfair for patrons to have to pay transaction fees. In addition to that, most people support multiple creators and not just one, and they'll have to pay the extra fee for each pledge they make."
Tech journalist Bryan Lunduke is already soliciting suggestions on Twitter for an open source or Free Software solution that accepts donations from multiple payment systems, and while the change doesn't go into effect until December 18th, NewtonsLaw writes that "it's starting to look as if many content creators will be getting a slightly larger percentage of a much smaller amount as a result of this lunacy by Patreon -- something that will see them far worse off than the were before."
a) liked to have been consulted first
b) wanted the option to retain the old system where they bear the cost of the fees.
As a content creator, I've already seen quite a few of my patreons reducing their pledge and others canceling their pledges completely -- and I understand why they are doing that.
"Everyone hates Patreon's new fee," writes VentureBeat, adding "Many creators are saying it's unfair for patrons to have to pay transaction fees. In addition to that, most people support multiple creators and not just one, and they'll have to pay the extra fee for each pledge they make."
Tech journalist Bryan Lunduke is already soliciting suggestions on Twitter for an open source or Free Software solution that accepts donations from multiple payment systems, and while the change doesn't go into effect until December 18th, NewtonsLaw writes that "it's starting to look as if many content creators will be getting a slightly larger percentage of a much smaller amount as a result of this lunacy by Patreon -- something that will see them far worse off than the were before."
Re: (Score:2)
Hits small pledges the most (Score:5, Insightful)
I had been pledging $1/month to several different creators. With the new fee structure, it's better to only fund one creator each month and rotate that creator every month. That's ridiculous.
I canceled all my pledges this morning in protest.
Re: Hits small pledges the most (Score:3)
I support several creators on Patreon. I have 2 categories of pledges: large ranging from $7 to $20 per month, and small of $1 per month, for a total of about $55 per month. Or better said I _had_ 2 categories of pledges. Since receiving the notification I had to drop all of the $1 pledges to keep the balance. It's regrettable but it is what it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I was contemplating supporting a few YouTubers with just that, 10$ a month or so and split it among the ones I liked. Then I read about the change in policy this week and I was like "Wait, this means I have to pay for *every* creator? Who came up with this nonsense?"
So that means no Patreon, simple. Sorry Big Clive, 8-Bit Guy and Today I Found Out.
Re:Hits small pledges the most (Score:4, Informative)
It's even worse than that:
Pledges aren't aggregated at the end of the month any longer, they'll be billed on the monthly anniversary of the pledge date.
For ALL pledges under roughly $10 (in countries WITHOUT VAT), the creator takes home a smaller percentage of the overall pledge + fees than they did before.
Credit-card companies will trigger on fraud for the same amount pulled multiple times in one day and lock the card, so you can't just re-pledge to sync everything on the 1st again like before. And even if you did you'd still pay the fee on each individual pledge.
For pay-per-post entries, that means every time that creator hits 'post' it'll charge everyone's card. How long until someone hits it half a dozen times by accident and their patrons all get their cards locked?
- WolfWings, still too lazy to login to /., but this is too damn important.
Re: (Score:2)
Hopefully you (and all of the people that replied in agreement with you) let the creators know why you're not now supporting them.
It's easily inferred that this is the reason, but making it explicit should help.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
$1.38 after this goes into effect. A 38% surcharge is just ludicrous.
Yep and if you were donating $1/mo to 20 artists it's now $27.60 once the fees are included.
I only support one and he's already emailed us all saying that it's absurd, he understands if people cancel their pledges (and many already have) and that he's looking for an alternative platform.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, you'll shout that they'd do better by visiting parts of the world stricken with all these "real" problems, and you're right. They, of course, need money to get there. So anything that takes more money from them,
Re: (Score:1)
And I pay 25% VAT on top of that, so it is expensive to give someone a dollar. :/
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, I'm down to supporting only 3 channels, Today I found out, Periodic Videos and Taofledermaus. I'll keep supporting them on Patreon until an alternative comes up but there is no way I will be supporting more channels via Patreon with this money grab. :(
Re: Hits small pledges the most (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
While that is an option, I would prefer everyone just left Patreon and let the company go out of business.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I do a few $1 pledges as well. And I get a single web comic or a D&D map in exchange, depending on the creator. A whole dollar is a lot to pay for a web comic, but it does help keep it going and reduces the reliance on advertising on the creator's site. And the dungeon maps eventually go on sale at DriveThru RPG [drivethrurpg.com] for around $1 each, but that site keeps 35%. And yes, that works out that Patreon's new prices is not a better deal than a store front.
I'll give you a concrete example. Having 444 [patreon.com] people contrib
I would have liked to be asked... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
That would be fine for a one-time transaction (e.g. purchasing a car).
With recurring transactions, there's also a period during which the contract is in effect (e.g. renting an apartment for a year). Once you're beyond that term, what happens next is either defined elsewhere in the contract, or is totally up in the air. Usually it switches to month to month. The two parties continue each month as they were under the original contract. But either party
Re: I would have liked to be asked... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: I would have liked to be asked... (Score:4, Insightful)
A simple solution would be for Patreon to allow pre-funding your account which would allow for a single fee.
Exactly. There’s no reason Patreon can’t batch the payments together to reduce processing fees for everyone involved. Moreover, the incentives are misaligned in this new system.
When I buy stuff from Apple, I generally don’t see the charge show up on my card for 2-3 days. If I end up buying multiple apps in that time, they batch them together in the same transaction, saving them those processing fees. And that works out well for them, since those transaction fees come from their slice of the pie.
Patreon should be doing something similar, either by allowing people to prepay, allowing people to be charged once per month for whatever has happened that month, or allowing people to be charged as things occur, but then batching them like Apple. Even if Patreon did the same but then passed those fees onto content creators instead of taking it from their own slice, it’d still be an improvement over what they had (since creators would effectively be splitting the fees, rather than paying them by themselves) and what they’re doing now (which seems designed to give credit card companies as much money as possible).
Wealth extraction by payment processors must stop (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, quit using currency with a %2 transaction fee and switch to Bitcoin with a flat $20 transaction fee.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the 2% (actually 2.9 iirc, call it 3), it's the 35 cents per. If it was just 3% and nothing else, I doubt anyone would be stressed.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the 2% (actually 2.9 iirc, call it 3), it's the 35 cents per. If it was just 3% and nothing else, I doubt anyone would be stressed.
Or even if each patron was only charged $0.35 on top of the 102.9% of the total of their pledges each month.
Re: (Score:2)
I have to admit, that's the bit that confuses the hell out of me.
That's such an obvious way to minimise transaction fees (which are to the detriment of creators, patrons and patreon themselves) that it just doesn't make sense not to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
The money they spend on their operations and covering fraud has to come from some where, therefore what is your proposal?
The cost of operation is small. The majority of their cost is in the big expensive office buildings, overpaid executives and hundreds of employees who do nothing of value.
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense. Take VISA, their operational costs are over $6 billion a year.
Now look at page six of their annual report:
http://s1.q4cdn.com/050606653/... [q4cdn.com]
They're just one of three different parties between consumer and merchant - and pages 6 and 8 detail the value that those three companies add to both parties.
Despite this, VISA have just 15000 employees to handle over 111 billion transactions a year. Every one of those transactions has to be secure, traceable, checked for fraud, compliant with AML (and other) r
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What decade did you time travel from. even the smallest businesses can get rates of .99% to 1.99% with an $0.18 transaction fee. Patreon is obviously paying less so are at least charging double their cost to cover basically non-existent overhead. (web site, small office and a handful of staff)
Re: (Score:1)
But that requires work and stuff. Complaining on social media is far easier.
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot isn't 'social media'. It's more like 'antisocial media'.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like a cash grab (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
That's how the pledges are processed already. Patreon bundles up a bunch of $1 pledges and does them all at once, to keep fees down.
This is purely a cash grab on the backs of users.
Re: (Score:1)
This is what Patreon did before the change.
You are mistaken.
Before the change, patreon *already* submitted a single transaction to charge me as a donor and so patreon only pays ONE transaction fee.
After the change, patreon will continue to submit a single transaction and thus continue to be charged one transaction fee. However I support 12 creators, and they will be charging ME 12 transaction fees.
1 of those 12 makes sense, as that is what they have to pay. The other 11 however are not actual transaction fees, they are patreon added fees, that I h
Re: (Score:1)
no, they clarified that they will no longer bundle transactions and will instead make a seperate charge for each pledge
it appears that in fact they had already decided to make that change but realized that creators would flip when they started paying the additional transaction fees; their research suggested that patrons are less sensitive to such changes and so shifted the fees to them.
so they were not actively malicious just totally incompetent.
Drop the fuckers (Score:1)
Drop Patreon and setup Dogecoin and Reddcoin wallets. It's free for you and the cost per transaction is only ONE COIN.
Seems high? It takes a few Dogecoins or Reddcoins to make ONE CENT. That's extremely cheap transaction fees.
Problem solved.
Re: (Score:2)
You also can't trade Apple shares or gold bars at McDonald's, doesn't mean they're worthless.
There's so many anti-crypto-currencies morons on Slashdot, it's hard to believe this used to be a place for nerds.
Re: (Score:2)
Reddit has horrifically censored conversations, I can't trust the discourse there. It's useful for (e.g.) looking up computer game hints (via a Google search) but just doesn't support the open discussions we get here.
Re: (Score:1)
Monopoly money also has very low transaction costs of zero monopoly dollars. Additionally one monopoly dollar is worth zero actual dollars.
Re: (Score:1)
If you really believe Dogecoins are worthless, send five million of them to D9scjyKETYZesSmhjCR4vye4bc6iDqXPd6.
Isn't this better? (Score:2)
On the contrary, the patrons were already paying the transaction fees before. They'd send donations to the creator, and the creator would use some of those donations to pay the transaction fees.
The only thing that's changed is that the patrons now know how much of their donation i
That's not how it worked before (Score:5, Informative)
If someone was supporting 10 patrons for $1/month each, then Patreon would bill them ONCE for $10 each month and the single transaction fee was split between the 10 creators. The result being each creator would get around 90 cents. This is what made the ecosystem of small donations actually work.
Now that person is billed 10 times with 10 transaction fees totaling $14 and each creator receives 95 cents.
Before the creators were getting 90% of the donation. Now they are getting 68%. People are upset because it breaks the system that only existed because of the way the fees were originally structured.
Re: (Score:1)
Where are you getting that creators only get 68%? How does 95 cents per dollar equal 68%?
You seem confused. The service fee is not taken out of the pledge
On one hand, yes you are correct and GP mathed wrong. almost backwards.
Before if I pledged $1, I paid $1, the creator paid the transaction fee on that. Then patreon took their 5% from the creators total amount that month.
Now if I pledge $1, I pay $1.44, and then patreon takes their 5% so the creator gets $0.95
But on the other hand, the creators WILL be making much less.
For example one creator I pledge a much larger amount to, last month had over 4000 pledges on the $1 tier. As of now that number is just
Re: (Score:3)
95 cents per dollar pledged but not per dollar charged to the patron. As you say, the service fee is on top of the pledge amount.
So a patron makes 10 one dollar pledges. That's
$10 in pledges + (10 * $0.38 in transaction fees) = $13.80 charged to the patron.
The creators get $9.50 worth of pledges. $9.50 / $13.80 = 68.88%
Re: (Score:1)
Of course it’s only out of what is pledged. Did you think the creator got a cut of the service fee?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Where did I pretend it didn’t exist? Oh right, nowhere did I do that.
Re: (Score:2)
Nonetheless, the maths is simple:
Before:
Patron : hands over $10
Creators : receive 90% of the money
Patreon : receive 5% of the money
After
Patron : hands over $13.80
Creators : receive 68% of that $13.80
Patreon : receive.. 3.6%?
Now assume the patrons can only afford $10.
Patron : hands over $10
Minimum per-creator is $1, so some maths needed here.
10 = x + 0.35x + 0.029x
(x is $1, 0.35x is the flat fee, 0.029x is the variable fee)
Nice easy equation, 10 = 1.379x, x = 7.25.
So the patron can now only fund 7 creators,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
That is true. It’s tacked on to the amount not taken from the pledge.
Re:Isn't this better? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
That's how it works at Porter's, my exclusive steak restaurant. Also the 'steak' is actually made from incorrigible employees.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Not much considering how cheap most customers are already.
Re:Isn't this better? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a money grab for Patreon. I suspect it's a golden parachute deployment tactic by the executives because there's no other logical explanation for this; they knew the backlash would happen.
You should take the time to understand what you're commenting on before you put fingers to keyboard. I have nothing against you but you spouted a bunch of false numbers as facts. The information is very easy to get so there isn't an excuse.
Re: (Score:2)
Out of this $1.38, $0.95 goes to the creator, $0.05 is the Patreon fee, and the remaining $0.38 is the "transaction fee" which Patreon largely pockets since they STILL batch all donations by a person into one lump sum withdrawal.
They currently batch all donations into one monthly credit card charge, but this whole discussion is about how they're changing things, not what they currently do. And they will be changing to charge each pledge separately. E.g., if you donate $1 each to 10 creators, your card currently gets charged $10 one time. But after Patreon's change, your card will be charged $1 ten times.
De-aggregation of pledges; 3 suggested fixes (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not a patron or creator on Patreon, but here's what I've been able to piece together from recent news:
The credit card processors charge a swipe fee on the order of 30 cents per transaction in addition to a rake of 2 to 3 percent of the value. For debit cards processed through card-present EFTPOS, only the swipe fee applies, which is part of why stores default to "debit" instead of "credit". But in either case, the swipe fee is why many convenience stores have a minimum charge for small purchases, and Amazon charges sellers a minimum commission of $1 per item.
The use of "de-aggregate" in this Tweet [twitter.com] implies that Patreon used to aggregate pledges from multiple donors when charging patrons' credit cards. But there were reportedly a couple abuses of this. One involved people who would pledge to a particular creator, view the creator's patron-only posts, and cancel the pledge the user's before billing date. Another is that a chargeback by a cardmember who doesn't remember his pledges would affect all pledges. So instead, Patreon switched to separately on behalf of each creator.
I can think of a few ways that Patreon could reduce the impact of a swipe fee on $1 and $2 pledges.
Re: (Score:3)
But there were reportedly a couple abuses of this. One involved people who would pledge to a particular creator, view the creator's patron-only posts, and cancel the pledge the user's before billing date. Another is that a chargeback by a cardmember who doesn't remember his pledges would affect all pledges. So instead, Patreon switched to separately on behalf of each creator.
Like, someone does this ... once? Because if they do it routinely, presumably to access the same content, wouldn't it be easier to just terminate their account, rather than restructure your entire fee system?
Also, I don't fully understand the chargeback point. AFAICT, I only can chargeback my entire monthly aggregate pledge amount, not a portion of it. Patreon may have a policy of honoring such things at their level, but I'm not sure why that would need to involve the credit-card chargeback system at all
Re: (Score:2)
Like, someone does this ... once? Because if they do it routinely, presumably to access the same content, wouldn't it be easier to just terminate their account, rather than restructure your entire fee system?
The claim, as I understand it, is that a substantial fraction of the user base has done this once.
Re: (Score:2)
Like, someone does this ... once? Because if they do it routinely, presumably to access the same content, wouldn't it be easier to just terminate their account, rather than restructure your entire fee system?
The claim, as I understand it, is that a substantial fraction of the user base has done this once.
Then they shouldn't be whining.
Re: (Score:1)
When has that ever stopped people from whining?
Open-source Patreon alternative. (Score:3)
Tech journalist Bryan Lunduke is already soliciting suggestions on Twitter for an open source or Free Software solution that accepts donations from multiple payment systems.
This sounds like a job for GNU Taler.
https://taler.net/en/index.html [taler.net]
Re: (Score:2)
Ever tried opening a bank account in a foreign currency? Ever tried opening 50 of them for 50 different currencies? It's not impossible in the strictest sense of the word, but if you somehow manage it it's going to cost you a small fortune in fees.
And that means Taler will only ever be a system for Americans to receive money from other Americans. I don't even believe the
There's always Hatreon (Score:1, Informative)
Give these guys a try. [hatreon.net]
First content, now money (Score:5, Insightful)
This seems like Patreon is read to IPO. A few months ago they went after game developers (who use the system and provide monthly updates to patreons) and started objecting to sexual content in the games. Now they are changing the system to start charging more to the patreons, instead of charging more to the people who benefit from the donations. There was a time (I am showing my age) where Paypal did the same thing before it IPOed, by changing the payment method just before it became public so that they could have predictable revenue methods to describe to investors.
I don't know if it is for the best or now, I just know that people don't like being screwed out of money. In the US, we are conditioned to not know what prices are as everything we buy is the price of an item but tax is figured by the computer at the register. Yes sometimes in some states it is simple math but when you live in a province with tax rates like 9.417% you have no freaking clue what you are going to pay until the cashier tells you. That is exactly what people are pissed off about with this new policy change at Patreon. They knew it was a dollar (or ten) that was spent, now it is some formula that they have to figure out and it is not easy to figure out what is going on. Patreon is not mentioning if you get charged fees multiple times, single transactions, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like it is ready to IPO (I couldn't edit it and realized it after I posted).
Re: (Score:3)
This is a change that sounds good to investors and is horrible for actual usage. Sounds like standard operating procedure for getting ready for an IPO.
Re: (Score:1)
Jesus Christ kid, take a math class. Move the decimal place over one spot, and there's your tax.
Re: (Score:2)
While my point was more for hyperbole than factual, I think you either are being obtuse or silly. I know how to estimate, I said to know what the actual answer was. Growing up in Wisconsin, 5% tax rate, I was in third grade and I knew how many weeks I would have to save up for a GI Joe I wanted to buy $3.99 plus $0.20 cents tax, that is five weeks to cover it at a dollar a week. Being a professional with 4 semesters of college calculus behind me, and living in Kirkland, WA, with 9.14% tax, I didn't know
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm, this item is $19.95. Lets round it up to 20 bux. 9.417 percent tax, well, lets round it up to 10 percent. I'm going to wind up paying slightly less than 22 bux at the cashier.
Welcome to reality (Score:2)
Re:Welcome to reality (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Patreon was newer responsible for covering fees, it was always on creator side
2. Fees have two components: percentage of amount and fixed sum. In current system all payments are made together so the fixed part is paid once only. In new system all payments will be made separately so fixed amount is added to every payment. Basically for every extra pledge I make I waste the fee amount. For large pledge its largely irrelevant, but for small ones it means huge increase in costs
3. Patreon takes 5% as their fee. Now that they don't offer payment aggregation service and so become the LEAST efficient way of supporting the creator, why should I give it to them? So far the cost of convenience was low as aggregation lowered the external costs, but now they will be just taking 5% on top of other ways to support for a "fanpage" and paywall system of questionable quality.
Re: (Score:2)
It has nothing to do with knowing how payment processing works, it has to do with knowing what your payment is. People unconsciously budget their money and want to know how much stuff costs. When you throw variable rates into the mix, it is hard for some people to do the math. There are two, big issues here which have nothing to do with entitlement or what ever your indignation is.
* Patreon switched the model 180 degrees without much notice. They are now making the Patreons pay more where as before it w
Re: (Score:2)
Could you come back in a couple of months and let us know whether it's changed?
There'll be a lag on the impact, as a lot of people wont realise how much extra this is costing until it's hit their credit cards. That'll be the test.
No surprise (Score:2)
"They didn't ask first." (Score:2)
We trusted them with our wallets and they have told us that OUR wallets are THEIR property. It follows from that that Patreon cannot be trusted. I've canceled my smaller donations and am going to contact them about alternatives, since I do want to support their work. I'm also going to be contacting my bigger beneficiaries about alternatives.
Patreon is toast as far as I'm concerned. There is NO way they can apologize their way out of the attitude they have demonstrated.
Let's do the calculations (Score:4, Insightful)
According to Patreon's blog entry, previously creators received anywhere from 85%-93% of donations. Now they receive exactly 95% of pledges, but only a part of the amount paid by the patron counts as "the pledge".
Let x be the total amount paid by a patron for a pledge, and p be the value of the pledge.
x = 1.029p + 0.35
Solving for the worst case, where the 95% of the pledge that the creator receives is at least 85% of all money donated, to match that under the new system the patron would need to pledge at least $3.95, which would cost the patron $4.42. That's what a patron will need to pay to avoid the creator receiving less than the worst case under the old system. Paying $5 is hardly better - let's look at the $1-$5 range, which is what most patrons are probably giving:
From now on, patrons who pledge $1 have to pay $1.38, and the creator receives less than 69% of that. Patrons who want to pay $1 to each of their recipients are out of luck, and must choose between increasing their monthly Patreon expense or give up donating. When patrons spend $5 the creator sees less that 86% of that, which is basically the same as the old system's worst case.
Okay, but at what point does the new system work out better for the creator than the old system's best case? The answer is: never. Even if a donor pledges a million dollars a month the creator gets barely over 92% of it.
---
To sum it all up, Patreon is raising its fees dramatically, so instead of creators receiving 85%-93% of money given by patrons, they will now receive 69%-86% in practice.
In addition, they will also have fewer patrons because new hidden fees on the payer's side will turn many potential and existing patrons off.
And on top of that, the minimum pledge of $1 now costs 38% extra, all the patrons who used to sponsor multiple creators at $1 each but aren't willing to pay 38% extra per month on Patreon will now have to choose between dropping more than a third of their sponsored creators or dropping out of Patreon entirely. Either way, creators lose many of their patrons.
If Patreon simply hiked their fees honestly instead of instead of adding the extra "35c plus 2.9% of your pledge that that count as part of your pledge" hidden service fee for patrons to disguise the fee hike then it would creators would grumble about losing roughly an eighth of their net revenue but at least wouldn't be losing patrons too. Keeping all the fees on the receiver's is better for everybody.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently they've received a lot of VC and are priming for IPO. It's a cash grab to boost revenues.
Re: (Score:2)
The worst part is, they now levy the transaction charge on every single post, rather than on the single monthly payment.
Re: (Score:2)
Flattr? Liberapay? (Score:2)
Am looking around for alternatives, and wondering if anyone here use either Flattr or Liberapay, either as a creator or a supported ?
Bitcoin (Cash) would work fine. (Score:2)
Fees are under 5 cents. Who knows about a system that lets me do scheduled payments (onchain, not via an exchange)?
Why jack it up so fast? (Score:2)
The 35 cent per pledge fee is excessive (Score:2)
Presumably the point of the 35 cent per pledge fee is to cover transaction costs. But Patreon can aggregate those for patrons that pledge money to more than one creator each month, and simply put through one charge transaction that covers all the pledges. (They're running their business badly if they're not already doing that.) Patreon would have gotten a lot less pushback if they had instituted a single monthly fee to patrons, and would still get enough revenue to cover their processing costs. Other than w
Re: (Score:2)
Watch better stuff. The channels I donate to rarely tout patreon. They either have very few supporters and/or produce insanely high quality videos that I wish to continue seeing e.g; Science Asylum and Applied Science.
Re: (Score:2)