A possible business model is to charge $1 to grab the source code for a snippet, or some sort of monthly fee for wider access. It might be easy to rip off via "inspect", but there's alot of people in this world who pay when required.
Iconfinder has 1.5 million icons and tens of thousands of fonts. They have both a large catalogue and a large customer demographic (e.g., anyone looking for an icon for a presentation, a flyer, software).
Animista lets people that write HTML/CSS/webapps interactively choose or tune the settings of a relatively small set of CSS animations styles. It's like a convenience table of contents for what one would typically find in scattered various CodePen examples. It wouldn't make much money.
It's a matter of value. There is nothing near 150k/mo of recurring revenue or sustainable value here.
Edit: And even though it's not what I was saying, I don't know why you think that kind of thinking is 'programmer think'. That's a bit disparaging to programmers, no? The ones I know aren't that shallow.
>There is nothing near 150k/mo of recurring revenue or sustainable value here.
$1k/mo > Any $/mo > $0/mo >>>> Negative $/mo spent on hosting
There are many people who would pay to use the code generated by this tool - even if it can be trivially grabbed via Inspect Element. It seems that's a common sentiment among posters on this topic - and I agree with them.
It might seem silly to charge for 3-step keyframes (0->40->100 on many of them) with different timing functions but people will pay for just that.
