(This article will become public on 14/01/2024)
The joys that Nostr brings know no bounds, as people around the globe enjoy its censorship-resistant communications and ownership of their voice and text content, but when it comes to handling multimedia content, it is known to be difficult, less efficient, and costly.
That’s why I’d like to open up the discussion to discuss how we can think of systems so that we can enjoy uploading and downloading large files in a decentralized way, similar to what we have on Nostr with text-based posts.
The Problem
The reason why Nostr is working is that it’s relatively inexpensive to run a relay and manage hundreds to hundreds of thousands of notes or more, to download or upload them to one or more people, as they’re just text. However, that can’t be said with image content, and even more so for video content. Here are the reasons why:
Storage
Storing video files requires significant amounts of server space. Video files are larger compared to text or image files, and hosting providers need to invest in robust storage infrastructure to handle the volume of data generated by videos.
Bandwidth
Video streaming consumes substantial bandwidth, especially when multiple users are streaming simultaneously or when videos are viewed frequently. Hosting providers must pay for the data transfer required to deliver videos from their servers to users’ devices.
Content Delivery Networks (CDNs)
To ensure fast and reliable video streaming globally, many hosting providers use CDNs. CDNs distribute content across multiple servers worldwide, reducing latency and improving the overall viewing experience. CDN services often come with associated costs.
Processing and Encoding
Videos may need to be processed and encoded into various formats to accommodate different devices and internet speeds. This involves additional computing resources and can contribute to operational costs.
The Secondary Problem
Considering that we also want to decentralize video hosting, the problem also spreads out to multiple points instead of the traditional centralization of the issue.
Digesting The Problem
When it comes to decentralized video hosting, considering what’s discussed so far, it seems like the major hurdles that come to mind are mostly tied to dealing with costs associated with each of these issues.
The Solution
Given that the primary challenge in decentralized video hosting is tackling costs, the solution centers on creating a business model and system that syncs up the interests of content creators, hosters (relay operators), and viewers. This aims to effectively manage costs in a way that’s a win-win for all parties involved, though it’s important to note that it might not encompass every aspect, unfortunately.
With that said, consider that this system is already up and running, to better explain where I’m coming from.
Select Multiple Relays for Video Hosting
Content creators can choose to distribute their video across multiple relays, enhancing redundancy and ensuring the availability of their content even if some relays experience downtime or are temporarily unreachable.
This approach leverages the decentralized nature of the network, allowing creators to tap into a distributed infrastructure for improved reliability. This also works as a sort of CDN.
Pay for Initial Hosting
Content creators would pay for hosting their video(s) only for a specified period. The pricing of this would depend on how long would the video be hosted, how big is the file, as well as the allocated bandwidth size.
For example, an uploader would pay $5 per month for a file size limit of 5 GB and a bandwidth limit of 50 GB per month. So, if you have a 100 MB video uploaded, you’re allocated 500 views (assuming the video is loaded 100%).
Ad Monetization and Revenue Sharing
With ads running, the platform introduces advertising opportunities to further monetize content. Advertisers pay to display ads within or alongside videos, creating an additional revenue stream.
The generated revenue is then distributed among content creators, hosters (relay operators), and viewers through Bitcoin’s Lightning Network.
For example, creators might receive 60% of ad revenue, hosts 30% (more or less, whatever is required based on costs and revenue), and viewers who watch the ads could receive 10%. This incentivizes all participants to contribute to the success of the decentralized video-hosting ecosystem.
With that said as well, there’d be an option for the viewer to not see ads, where they’d pay up to not see it, either from the money they’ve received so far from watching ads or from their own money obtained elsewhere, and a part of that goes to the creator of the video where there should’ve been an ad playing.
Final Thoughts
From my perspective this all makes sense. What needs to be done now is to iron out the business model of it, and for the system to handle the technicalities of it and make it functional. However, this would most likely not be done until Nostr gets more adoption to create the desire for advertisers to advertise on the protocol.
With that said, all of this would play into the bigger picture of general monetization on Nostr, which will always continue to be a point of discussion. Check out a related article I wrote about monetizing Nostr clients, which would intertwine with what’s written here to an extent.