What happened with the Web Monetization API?
Efforts to create a seamless way to pay websites small amounts—such as the now-defunct Web Monetization API and projects like Coil, Brave/BAT, and GNU Taler—have repeatedly run aground on a mix of regulation, fees, UX friction, and lack of adoption. Commenters debate whether crypto, traditional rails (cards, SEPA, UPI), or browser-mediated wallets are the right foundation for web micropayments, but most agree that compliance (KYC/AML, taxes) and platform incentives are bigger obstacles than technology. Underneath is a broader argument about how the web should be funded—ads and surveillance, subscription paywalls, or some standardized, low-friction payment layer—and whether such a system would improve or further “enshittify” the internet.
Alternative web monetization attempts
- Several concrete experiments are discussed:
- GNU Taler: privacy-preserving digital cash with grants and EU interest; critics say UX and integration are very rough, and some fear it’s ultimately a cover for removing physical cash and could later drop anonymity.
- Brave/BAT: strong disagreement whether it’s an innovative parallel ad economy or a “scam” that blocks site ads while monetizing user attention; UX is opt‑in and notification-based, but many publishers feel ripped off.
- Coil and the Web Monetization API: a few people used it and saw tiny payments; Coil shut down and adoption was minimal.
- Scroll (acquired then killed), Flattr, various extensions and non‑profits (e.g. Lagom) tried “pool + distribute by usage” models with limited traction.
Crypto as payment rails
- Proponents say crypto is ideal for cross-border and micro‑transactions: low fees on some chains, Lightning and L2s, privacy coins, and stablecoins as rails; cite real-world remittance stories.
- Critics emphasize scams, speculation, high or volatile fees on major chains, capital‑gains tax complexity, KYC crackdowns, and that many scaling solutions trade decentralization for efficiency.
- Some argue crypto’s deflationary design and public ledgers make it poor everyday money; others counter that off-chain or exchange-mediated payments can hide identities and be cheap.
Micropayments economics and regulation
- Card and processor fees make true per‑cent payments hard; suggested mitigations:
- Prepaid wallets / proxy currencies managed by a few intermediaries.
- Regulation-capped fees (EU) and alternative rails like SEPA, UPI.
- Marketplace model that centralizes tax/VAT handling instead of every site doing cross‑border compliance.
- Multiple comments stress KYC/AML, fraud, chargebacks, and VAT as fundamental cost drivers, not mere technicalities.
Social, UX, and behavioral factors
- Several argue the main blockers are social:
- People prefer a few $5/month subs or Patreon-style support over constant per‑page tipping.
- Psychological barrier between “free” and even $0.01 is large.
- Users hate intrusive paywalls and upsell flows; they say “I’d pay” but balk at fragmented, subscription-heavy reality.
- Some think seamless browser-level flows (e.g., charge small amounts from a preloaded balance) are essential; others fear “nonstop begging for pennies.”
Browsers, power, and governance
- Many say any solution must be browser‑native, but doubt dominant ad-funded vendors will ship something that undercuts adtech.
- Comparisons are made to in‑app purchases: browsers as escrow/wallets taking Stripe‑like, not app‑store‑like, cuts.
- There is concern that whoever controls the rails (banks, card networks, or browser vendors) will also police speech (e.g., “hate speech” sites) via de‑banking.
Will paid micro‑web fix or worsen enshittification?
- One camp: direct payments could reduce dependence on surveillance ads and fix incentives.
- Another: once every interaction can be monetized, sites will double-dip (pay + ads) and aggressively optimize extraction; might worsen today’s “enshittification.”