N°6
Hummingbird
Kid Twist said:
Women are less likely to pay to get access to online men whom they don't really respect. That's what Tinder expects them to do now. Men however would have less scruples with paying Tinder for theoretical access to 1000s of local women.
Most women being free members of Tinder have restricted swipes per day which compounds their relative passivity compared to mass-swiping men who as likely paying members have access to unlimited swipes per day. The value of the male right-swipe is next to nothing which led Tinder to create the superlike which is declining in value owing to female price inflation.
In 2010, I was a member of beautifulpeople.com having been accepted in by its female membership (interestingly, Hispanic North and South American women liked me the most while English women liked me the least). This was my most successful online profile ever. Most messages I sent to genuinely attractive women were answered. These women had to be accepted by the men to get in and I had to be accepted by the women, there was a mutual social proof frame. I am still in contact with some of these women today which is incredible owing to the high levels of ghosting that happen now.
The owners of BP monetised it one day and the numbers of female membership collapsed overnight. The business plan was to use their attractive profiles to target men's credit cards. Most messages suddenly became unanswered leading to paying men allowing 5s and 6s into BP as their thirst grew owing to the monetised scarcity. These new 5s and 6s who replaced the former women began to really think that they were the top 20% of women - who subsequently began seeking the top 10% of men.
When I found that the new 5s and 6s ignored me when my profile was accredited by the now absent 8+ women, I closed my account.