I side with @bgroat a bit, the unit economics seem a bit steep. I like the idea of filtering internet content in general for 100% completion. I think there is something there.
I'm not sure if the incentive for creators is there, e.i. why would a creator share revenue for fully read articles?
I think you found a value-add for the demand-side of the market but not the supply-side. That's something I'd iterate on :).
The value-add for the supply-side is that you'd be getting paid when Readup users read your free articles on your own platform (like I just did with this article). We're sharing our revenue with you, not the other way around!
Glad you like the completion filter! I've found myself reading articles just so I could leave a comment about how much I disagreed with the headline only to have my mind changed half way through. Taking the time to read really matters!
You should charge through another platform! There's nothing exclusive about the relationship that we want to have with writers. As long as you're producing any content that is a) freely available and b) worth reading we want it surfaced to our community of readers and we want to compensate you on a per-read basis for it.
The writer compensation is both a value prop for our users (it's the #1 reason that users say they would want to pay for a Readup subscription) and a growth mechanism for us since some writers will have an incentive to tell their readers to read them on Readup. We think that initially writers who have a non-existent or small subscription base would be most inclined to want to promote Readup to their readers but that should scale up as we grow.
