plebos vs Substack
Substack proved writers would pay for independence. The question is what the structure does to that independence over time.
| plebos | Substack | |
|---|---|---|
| Cut of your paid subscriptions | 4%, declining | 10%, forever |
| Ads on your work | Banned by charter | In pilot (2025–) |
| Can be sold to someone worse | No — becoming steward-owned | Yes (VC-backed) |
| Engagement algorithm deciding your reach | Never | Increasingly |
| Readers can follow you across the open web | Built in | No |
The 10% is the small problem
Substack's rake is 10% of your paid subscriptions, ongoing, plus payment processing — and it never declines. At a thousand paid readers, that is a serious salary deduction for software. plebos charges 4%, declining as you grow, waived entirely on paid hosting tiers. But the rake is the visible cost.
The structure is the big one
Substack raised venture capital at a $1.1B valuation. That money expects a return, and the playbook for returns is the same everywhere: grow the network, own the distribution, then monetize the attention. The app feed, Notes, recommendations — more and more of your reach there flows through feeds you do not control and cannot see into. And native ads entered pilot in late 2025. None of this requires anyone at Substack to be wrong or bad. It is what capturable ownership must do eventually — that is an argument about structure, not about the people.
plebos is built so that this cannot happen here. A public charter commits us to no advertising and no sale of your data; we are placing the company under steward-ownership, so no investor can ever force us to grow at your expense; and federation means your readers follow you, at your own address, so leaving us is nearly free. A platform you can leave for free is one that cannot afford to give you a reason to.
To be fair to Substack
The network is real: recommendations drive genuine discovery, and the product is polished. If algorithmic growth on a VC timeline is a trade you accept with open eyes, Substack does it well. Our case is simply that you should not have to bet your livelihood on a structure whose incentives point away from you.