Patreon shouldn't even exist. They're here because government(s) have failed so badly that they haven't put any effort into the infrastructure to trivialize the transfer of its paper between the people holding it. It's as useful a function as highways and the internet, but government failures (that lobbyists pay individuals in government to continue failing at) create room for deeply entrenched trusts paypal to be established.
There's no moral amount they should charge imo; it's completely arbitrary. If you think it should be less, vote for better people, advocate for better things, make crypto that works and isn't exclusively an attraction for criminals and rent-seekers, or pour money into marketing a competitor. You can switch to another service, but I might not want to give your other service my card info. Well if your other service takes paypal I'll use it, so they'll start 5% behind.
>I don't think Patreon's reason to exist is because "sending money p2p is hard".
Why do you think that? Sending money p2p is hard in a world where cryptocurrency is treated like an investment vehicle and not a payment system.
>There is a lot of room for competition though. As a supporter, my loyalty is to the creator not to the platform.
You don't clearly speak on behalf of most users here. "Using multiple platforms" in the fiat/traditional system effectively means giving your credit card information to multiple businesses and increasing your risk for fraud, overcharging and identity theft. It's the reason why these intermediaries like PayPal and Patreon operate in the first place.
IMO Patreon exists for creators to create public profile pages on which people can subscribe to support the creator on a recurring basis in return for some perks. It's (IMO) largely succesful on the basis of network effects (once you support one creator on Patreon, the friction to support another is significantly lower). Plenty of creators also have paypal 'tip jars', but I think these are significantly less effective at enabling a steady income.
I think if we had a competitive, cheap and secure-enough micropayments system we could do away with advertisement-based monetization altogether. Creators could host their own videos, blogs, etc. on their own website and just charge a fraction of a cent per pageview or download.
Even if we had a fully government ran, 100% flawless, zero-cost micropayment system, thee majority of people would still not host their own website for their content.
Those systems are proprietary. Once they scoop up a sufficient chunk of market share, they will abuse their networking effects to raise their fees and become less consumer-friendly. You will forever be stuck in the same situation trying to get people to switch to a cheaper, more competitive "underdog" system again and again.
Even if that infrastructure existed I still think we'd just see more mini-patreon companies rather than some glorious totally asynchronous graph of payments.
There's no moral amount they should charge imo; it's completely arbitrary. If you think it should be less, vote for better people, advocate for better things, make crypto that works and isn't exclusively an attraction for criminals and rent-seekers, or pour money into marketing a competitor. You can switch to another service, but I might not want to give your other service my card info. Well if your other service takes paypal I'll use it, so they'll start 5% behind.