Not knowing the exact amounts involved isn't a bug -- it's a feature. One major credible theory as to why previous micropayments systems failed is that even thinking about amounts added too much friction. A little like converting a previous voluntary activity to a paid activity, assigning any exact value to it causes a different decisionmaking-scheme to be applied -- which can then kill conversion.
Who cares if every Flattr-click is valued differently, as long as overall, the right people are net-payers, the right people are net-receivers, and the magnitudes generally reward quality? While some activities (banking) require precise accounting, many other socially-valuable activities benefit most from loose accounting.
This criticism ultimately fails because the author himself concludes:
Will I put a Flattr icon on the site? Probably. There's no good reason not to.
It's not that thinking about amounts adds friction, it's that it changes the psychology.
Your doctor friend might give you health advice for free, but wouldn't give it for $1.
Although there is still money involved, it's not at the forefront, so I think people's psychological motivations are different when they click that button.
The challenge will be convincing people to sign up in the first place.
The monetary amounts move the decision psychologically to a new category. This new category typically triggers economic weighing of costs and benefits. Such weighing takes more mental effort than the kind of hair-trigger evaluation a marginally-costless action (like a comment upvote or Flattr-click) does. That mental effort is transactional friction, a tax on seriously considering the transaction. At the margin, some people move on to the next shiny link instead of engaging in the weighing effort.
The motivation-crowd-out effect is related, as is the "don't insult me by putting a measly price on this" sentiment (which I think dominates your doctor example) -- but the theory about previous micropayments that I believe true is in fact talking about a decisionmaking friction.
Well, there's a new friction point added -- each click slightly devalues all previous clicks that month. So now you're thinking "is this comic strip really as good as that recipe for strawberry pie I read last night?"
I think Flattr might be on to something, but the friction isn't gone.
Who cares if every Flattr-click is valued differently, as long as overall, the right people are net-payers, the right people are net-receivers, and the magnitudes generally reward quality? While some activities (banking) require precise accounting, many other socially-valuable activities benefit most from loose accounting.
This criticism ultimately fails because the author himself concludes:
Will I put a Flattr icon on the site? Probably. There's no good reason not to.
Indeed!