Dickens, of course, did not have streaming services—or the slow erosion of musical diversity—in mind when he opened A Tale of Two Cities with those immortal lines. Yet had he glimpsed the creative realities of today, he might have agreed that the quote fits remarkably well. Our era offers unprecedented possibilities for creators, but equally profound challenges, many of which arise from the very systems designed to distribute their work.
How we choose to describe and interpret the creator’s reality often depends on our own incentives. The facts, however, are stubbornly independent of interpretation. And they tell a clear story:
We are, systematically and economically, erasing musical diversity.
Today, 86.2% of all Spotify tracks tracked by Luminate receive fewer than 1,000 streams.
Under Spotify’s new 1,000-stream threshold, they earn nothing.
Not because no one listened, but because the system decided they don’t qualify.
That policy reallocation—again, not a technical limitation—moves more than $40 million annually away from excluded creators, with $23.44 million landing directly in the accounts of major labels. This is not an accident; it’s a design. And designs shape outcomes. In this case: which music survives, and which disappears.
Innovation never begins at the center.
It begins at the edges.
And the edges are exactly where today’s system removes the economic oxygen.
This is why musical diversity is not merely a sentimental concern for those excluded from the system—it is a strategic necessity for an industry that has historically relied on unexpected voices, unpolished talents, and “diamonds in the rough” to discover tomorrow’s stars. When the system stops supporting the edges, the entire ecosystem loses.
For this reason, initiatives like the Fair Music Project (now in beta testing) are not acts of charity. They are investments in cultural infrastructure—designed to ensure sustainability, accountability, and a better business model for everyone involved.
At the heart of this lies the user-centric model, in sharp contrast to today’s pro-rata systems used by most streaming services and CMOs. User-centric models ensure money reaches the right creators. And they are better equipped to withstand the coming flood of AI-generated audio—material that it calculates, not composing…
As Dickens understood, people often see the world in very different ways—especially when it suits them. When, for example, the chair of an authors’ organization claims that user-centric compensation is “too expensive” (which it is not), he is really saying that it is simply easier not to change.
But imagine a bank proudly announcing: “We receive massive amounts of money, but we do not allocate them to the correct accounts. Instead, we distribute them as we see fit—primarily to the accounts that already hold the most money.” No one would accept that. Yet creators are asked to accept the equivalent every day.
So what does it take for a user-centric system to function?
Trust.
And modern verification technology now makes that trust both feasible and efficient:
- Permanent blockchain provenance records
- Cryptographic IDs assigned to every track
- AI-based content detection with 94%+ accuracy in under 200 ms
- Upload-velocity limits tied to verified human identity
- Cross-platform fraud-intelligence sharing
When hundreds of tracks are dumped every week from a single account, they are flagged.
When human creators release monthly or quarterly, they are verified.
And the economic results are dramatic:
An artist with 100 dedicated subscribers earns $7,574 annually under this model—versus zero on threshold-based platforms.
The traditional pro-rata system systematically disadvantages artists with smaller but loyal audiences. A subscriber who listens exclusively to independent creators still ends up funding mainstream content they never consume. The value created at the edges is siphoned toward the center.
And the claim that user-centric implementation is “too expensive”?
False.
Production-scale systems show it can be deployed in four weeks—a timeline now enabling the International Music Council to take a decisive step toward its mission: ensuring that everyone who creates music is fairly paid for the value they contribute.
Audiences, importantly, agree.
69% believe AI-generated music should be paid less than human-created work.
Smart contracts make this automatic, protecting authentic creativity while reducing synthetic flooding.
Diversity, in this context, extends beyond genre. It includes local repertoire, the cultural DNA that must be supported if the “local becoming global” is to remain possible. Here too, modern systems offer practical solutions. Through stablecoin payment rails (USDC, PYUSD, USDT), cross-border compensation becomes instant, inexpensive, and equitable. Instead of waiting weeks and losing $25–$50 in fees per transfer, artists can receive payments within minutes at a cost of about 50 cents—retaining 99% of their income.
In other words:
The 1,000-stream threshold is not fate.
It is a choice.
And no one believes it will stay at 1,000.
Alternative models already operating today show that fair compensation works when built on:
- User-centric economics
- Blockchain verification
- Anti-fraud AI
- Stablecoin infrastructure
- Transparent provenance labeling
The real question is not whether it can be done.
The real question is whether we will continue to exclude the majority of human creativity—or build an architecture in which every creator is compensated according to the true value they generate.
The technology exists.
The economics are proven.
Implementation takes weeks, not years.
So let us capture the $867 million underserved creator market (+ increasing) and finally direct it to the right owners it belongs to.
The decision point is now.
And I choose to see these as the best of times, for great opportunities lie ahead—if we actively choose to recognize them.