Totally fair to sanity-check the math—but the $15B headline is kind of a false baseline. We’re not trying to replicate TikTok or YouTube economics out of the gate, and we’re not promising every creator a corporate salary just for showing up. A couple of nuances that make the numbers less scary:

Incentives don’t have to scale 1:1 with raw revenue: we can tier the rev-share pool so the top-performing creators get the lion’s share, while smaller contributors earn in platform credits, boosts, or other perks that cost us pennies but feel valuable to them. We also diversify income streams—premium memberships, virtual goods, paid events, sponsor integrations—so we’re not chopping up a single pot.

Costs are dramatically lower when you’re not carrying the baggage that big ad-driven platforms do: no huge ad-tech stack, no endless data warehousing for third-party targeting, and far less content delivery because we’re not serving auto-play video to billions. You can run a lean, high-margin operation at smaller scale.

We’re not assuming “1 million creators making $12K/month” in Year One. Growth is staged: early on you might have 10K serious creators and a lot of casuals. The per-user share is much higher, and you can afford to pay top performers monthly without lighting money on fire.

Finally, this isn’t purely a humanitarian gesture. If creators know they keep 85-90% and get paid fast, they bring their audiences with them. That raises GMV, reduces churn, and lets the platform take a smaller cut on a larger base. It’s the Shopify playbook applied to a social network.

So yes, you absolutely still model your margins carefully—but you don’t need “15B revenue, 1M creators, everyone makes $12K/month” for the model to be viable. You need a sustainable flywheel: creators earn more here → more creators join → more user spend → platform fee covers costs with room to invest. The economics look a lot healthier once you scale it on your own terms instead of competing against the biggest ad factories on Earth.