In the related "Simplified Donation feature", On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 09:37 PM, Andy Wedge wrote, but (this part) is I think more relevant to this thread:
<snip>While I too can understand Mark's preference to deal with group owners for payment, I would ask the question, who benefits from a group being run? who gets the value? so who should pay? Is it the group members? the group owner? or even Groups.io, Inc? I would suggest, in the end, it is primarily the group members, receiving messages, etc., and maybe posting them.
Groups.io, Inc's service - providing the underlying system - is, of itself, of no end value: it only becomes valuable because people (group owners) are prepared to run groups, and put in the effort to manage them. For some groups, their members provide recompense to the owner (in another word, money) - somehow, directly or indirectly - for their membership, and this case it is proper that some of this should be paid on to Groups.io, Inc. For other groups, they won't. And in this case, it is appropriate for members to pay Groups.io, Inc direct. How (donation? charge per group? per 'profile'?), and how much, are in a sense details.
But I know if i were setting up a group, simply because I thought it would be useful for people to be able to discuss something, or provide mutual support, or whatever (rather than make money out of it), while I would be prepared to put in the management effort, I wouldn't be prepared to fund it on an open ended basis, or even a token one (beyond any normal 'member' payment). It is for Mark to decide whether, or how, such a group would be beneficial to Groups.io, Inc - noting that it (or should I say he) would be getting a 'free' group.
I suppose, in summary, the question for Mark is whether he is in a B2B (to business) or B2C (to consumer) market? (And whether he expects group owners to be 'businesses' or 'consumers'?)