What do you guys think of WritScrib? Apparently it's some

I'm cautiously excited. I got tired of Tumblr's tantrums long ago and deleted. The person behind Writscrib sounds reasonable but I still don't want to get my hopes up about the site itself.

I want desperately for it to be good, and on paper it sounds that way. But I'm sure that it's going to have its own share of problems even if it ends up successful, and that's a huge 'if'.

I imagine that a ton of people who are rightfully sick of tumblr will jump ship the second the site drops but whether they'll buy into the weird micro-transaction system they're going to rely on to stay afloat is another question.

>>3096976
>the weird micro-transaction system
After going through most of the available information, this bit is what worries me. The demographics of the site will look to be mainly underageds and otherwise people not looking to spend money on a fucking blogging website. Like most things involving microtransactions there's going to be the whales with income to burn just buying the biggest 'chip' package just for the sake of it, and then handing them out as they please. The majority of users will just not buy anything, or buy only a few chips at a time for the pay-for-view posts. After all, why pay a fanart/fic site of all things when there are completely free sites that don't require money to view and like posts already in place?
Should this be the case, only artists that cater to the big buyers will get the attention. And then more and more, considering that there seems to be no free likes or favorites system, so should there be a front page or the like for popular posts only the highest-paid artists will get that exposure.
I would be on board for this if the chip system were additional to a bookmark system like pixiv uses, so that the top posts are the ones people bookmark(or like, or favorite, etc) the most, not the ones that encourage people to pay for them. As it stands, I foresee this to devolve into yet another host for smutty fanart and fanfic.
However I haven't gone through all the Q&A, so my quibbles may have been answered already. But in any case, all I really want is a good, casual, English-speaking gallery site catering to artists. Gimmicks like these should be left at that, a gimmick, and shouldn't be expected to sustain a community, let alone a website.

>>3097095
I'm pretty sure the site comes with the standard like-and-repost system in addition to the ability to toss spare change at content you enjoy.

Additionally, I don't think users get to see how many times others have donated to any given post or how much money a given user has made, so ranking artists by donations isn't possible. I could be wrong but that's what I remember reading. but even if that was the case, artists pandering for money and popularity has always been a thing.

i'm mostly concerned that after a few months people will realize that there's no real incentive to purchasing Chips as a mode of supporting artists in lieu of just donating to them directly.

If the site gets lucky a bunch of people will buy Chips day one just to see what the big deal is, but it doesn't seem like the kind of purchase you'd make more than once. It doesn't feel sustainable in the long run, especially once the initial flood of new users starts to plateau

>>3096964
>>3096976
I don't see how this place will be better than Tumblr though? I know they won't allow callout posts and stuff but still.

>>3094481

Imagine all the fake accounts making money of other artists work

Good idea

>>3094481
With a logo like that the only thing it will destroy is the eyes of anyone who stumbles upon it.