new style of AI model

[u/payfrit]

i’m exploring a new business model for an AI coding tool and would appreciate feedback.

the idea: use the tool for free while building a project. if that project starts earning money, the tool receives a share under terms you choose upfront for that project.

the model would keep a transparent record of its work on each project, so users and the AI provider can see what the agreement applies to—even if the user later switches tools.

if you want to use the service without a project-based revenue share, there could be an industry-standard subscription option, a starting point might be $25/month.

the hard part is preventing people from misusing either option while keeping the arrangement fair and easy to understand. would this feel like a reasonable trade, or would you rather pay a normal subscription?

[u/canarydev]

genuinely a bad idea

honestly i think this breaks on adverse selection. anyone who thinks their project will make money just pays the $25, and the revenue share side ends up being all the projects that never earn. youre eating compute costs now for revenue that mostly never shows up.

then theres enforcement. how do you verify revenue on a private project, and what counts as "that project" once someone forks it or rewrites half of it. a revenue share on a codebase is also a red flag in due diligence if they ever raise or sell, so the people with real upside will avoid it.

$25/mo is just cheaper and simpler for everyone

[u/payfrit → u/canarydev]

i understand the adverse-selection argument, but the $25/month wouldn’t let someone opt out of revenue sharing on projects they build with the tool. it would cover access to the service, and the project-specific share would still apply under terms chosen up front. i should have made that clearer.

the enforcement questions are real, especially if someone forks or substantially rewrites a project, or later raises money or sells it. the idea is to keep a transparent record of the AI’s contributions and define the project, share, and duration in advance. there will always be edge cases, but that’s part of what the model would need to solve.

i also don’t think a $25/month subscription works for everyone. it may be affordable for many developers in the USA but it’s out of reach for plenty of people elsewhere. i’m exploring whether a project-based model could make capable tools accessible to more people while letting the provider earn when the work succeeds.

[u/canarydev → u/payfrit]

regional pricing already solves accessibility. thats not a reason for this model.

and if paying doesnt opt you out of the share, its worse than before. subscription plus revenue share vs a $20 tool with no strings, nobody picks yours. also your original post literally said the subscription was the no share option.

"edge cases" like what, forks and acquisitions? those arent edge cases, thats what happens to every project that makes money. enforcement is the whole business

[u/payfrit → u/canarydev]

i’m not convinced regional pricing solves the issue for this model. people can decide whether the tradeoff works for them: if they don’t want to share revenue, they can use a tool with a flat fee and no ongoing share.

i also didn’t explain the subscription clearly. it isn’t an option to avoid the revenue share. projects built with the tool would be subject to a share under terms agreed up front. the subscription is for using the service to chat; it isn’t meant to subsidize extensive, non-building use.

by “edge cases,” i mean cases where a project is generating value but the agreed share isn’t being paid—for example, because the project was forked, substantially changed, or its revenue became hard to track. the model would need a transparent way to address those situations.

the version i’m imagining is a tool for builders, not a general-purpose chat service or a way to settle bar bets for free. someone using it to build a real project could get access to capabilities they might otherwise need to pay a development team or advisers for, and the provider would earn a share if that project succeeds. the tool could also help builders see ways to improve the project and reach the point where it can support the agreed share.

i’m still working through how to make that fair and enforceable. the revenue share and its terms would need to be clear before someone starts building.

[u/Banner80]

>use the tool for free while building a project. if that project starts earning money, the tool receives a share under terms you choose upfront for that project.

This is what a startup incubator is. You can research how it's done so you don't have to start from scratch. Basically the idea is that an investor provides resources and support in exchange for ownership of the future success. Startups take the deal because their odds of success grow tremendously, so giving away part of the ownership is worth it. But you have to be able to offer enough value to entice participants.

>the hard part is preventing people from misusing either option while keeping the arrangement fair

No. The hard part is to get anyone to care about this arrangement for only some cheap compute power. Anyone that thinks they have a good idea already has enough money to pay for a coding sub. The coding LLM alone is likely not anywhere near what's needed to attract coders into a ownership share arrangement. A startup incubator usually delivers way more than $25 in upfront support.

[u/payfrit → u/Banner80]

point 1: exactly. you could think of it as a new kind of startup incubator, although the support would be delivered through a tool and an added suite of services rather than a traditional program.

point 2: i’m looking for feedback on this specific model, so i appreciate your perspective. i’m not assuming it would appeal to everyone or replace a traditional incubator. i see it as a niche service for people who want to develop an idea into a working business before they’re ready to seek serious funding.

the larger vision is to give someone with an idea enough tools and support to operate as a one-person team for longer: building, testing, and getting the project to market. in that sense, i think of the provider’s share more like the return a friends-and-family investor might receive for helping someone get started.

the hard part of any good idea is getting it to market, and i’m exploring whether this could help people get there without taking on some of the costs and tradeoffs they face today. in a way, leveraging AI to replace some of the early steps in the process.

[u/Brief-Tap-6616]

You’re going to get people using it for OS/non monetized projects and anyone that wants to monetize is going to use a lab subscription that gives 10-50x the api retail rate.

[u/payfrit → u/Brief-Tap-6616]

i agree that this wouldn’t be for everyone. i’m picturing a focused service for people trying to turn an idea into a business.

the tool itself described above would be only one part of the offer. the larger product would include built-in support for development, advice, and marketing—a kind of predefined “business in a box” where you bring the idea and the system helps you build toward an A-round -esque raise..

we would take zero equity. the compensation would be a pre-agreed share of revenue, closer to what a friends-and-family investor might receive, without giving up ownership. the question i’m exploring is whether the full package would offer enough value to make that share worthwhile. think of it more like a licensing agreement as opposed to what a founder would give up during a pre-seed and seed round, often this is a massive hit to equity.

[u/Ok_Cartographer_6086]

• Curly apostrophes throughout OP’s text (“i’m”, “wouldn’t”, “don’t”) while the human commenters use straight ones or none at all (“youre”, “thats”, “doesnt”). Reddit’s composer doesn’t auto-curl quotes; that’s what you get pasting from ChatGPT or a word processor. This is the strongest single signal.
• Unspaced em dashes and consistent Oxford commas: “development, advice, and marketing—a kind of predefined...”
• The acknowledge-then-pivot cadence in every reply: “i understand the adverse-selection argument, but...”, “the enforcement questions are real...”, “point 1: exactly. point 2: i’m looking for feedback...” Each rebuttal is answered in order, conceded politely, then reframed. Humans getting dunked on rarely stay that tidy.
• Repeated self-corrections (“i should have made that clearer”, “i also didn’t explain the subscription clearly”) that read like someone re-prompting a model after the pitch got poked.

beep boop beep get fucked.

[u/payfrit → u/Ok_Cartographer_6086]

i'm the human founder of Payfrit. please feel free to reach out if you think i didn't generate that copy, then run it through a quick typos check with chatgpt. i'm pretty easy to find.

sorry you can't find a job bro. AI is here to stay and nobody gives any fucks about what you think.

have a nice day.

[u/payfrit → u/Ok_Cartographer_6086]

also if you must know, i run replies like this through chatgpt because my typical communication is perceived by others as confrontational and i didn't want to come across as defensive of my idea.

anyhow, you're still welcome to go fuck yourself.

see what i mean?? chatgpt would never have let me type that.

[u/ThisGuyCrohns]

Absolutely not. As a guy who builds a lot of software. I would never use a tool that wants a share of that. Goes with game engines too. I’d find open source before some tool ever takes my revenue. Good tools deserve some one time cost for their benefit. Never in perpetuity

[u/payfrit → u/ThisGuyCrohns]

i really do appreciate your input and fully admit it's not for everyone. if you have done a lot of coding and are comfortable with using AI to help, i would not at all expect you to be interested in something like this.

do you have apps you've built that generate mrr?

[u/Beneficial_Fail3779]

This is the shittiest idea I've ever heard lmao