You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

uvulectomy ago

1. LET PEOPLE DONATE

2. If the "angel" defaulted on their contract, NAME AND SHAME THEM.

3. LET. THE. PEOPLE. DONATE. Seriously, bitcoin, dogecoin, etherium, money order, envelopes with cash, whatever. Allow the users to anonymously donate in order to keep this place running, because we need it now more than ever. Don't let the fucking kikes win.

@PuttItOut @Atko

illuminalto2 ago

We're not being given a chance it seems.

Whole lotta "I cant do it" and not a lotta "Yo atko passed this on cause he couldn't do it, does someone else want to do it?"

Goats have money.

This isn't an existential problem.

Easily solveable.

BoomerHater1488er ago

It has been tried before like two or three years ago. Generally what happens is that there is a massive surge of donations. The site is funded for two or three months.

Then the people who donated stop because they figure they did their share.

The people who didn't donate continue to not donate, and the site runs out of money.

It's expensive to keep a site like Voat up.

VoatsNewfag ago

Make it a "we funded x% of our costs this month" kind of deal. Like a bunch of other websites that are more transparent about their finances.

And even a few more months of voat would've been interesting, since some interesting stuff might happen until the inauguration in 2021.

But that could just as well be a good reason to ditch voat in time.

hg74rhyd9 ago

Gab does that, and their costs are pretty high.

VoatsNewfag ago

If it wouldn't cover the costs he could rightfully claim that he tried. And we would still have a place to discuss the great transition/reset or whatever is about to come in early 2021.

weezkitty ago

For a "free speech" site, it sure is lacking transparency. Not a single word about finances for 9 months? I don't fucking buy it

Silverlining ago

Well if you think you've got it all sorted with a contract with an angel, and then the angel pulls the rug, you're going to be despondent. It seems morally wrong to just shut the site without offering it to someone else to run. He could retain the right to take it back.

Mystiker ago

Yeah, but despondent for 9 months? And then giving 3 days notice, rather than minimum 1 week notice? Seems so fishy.