The one thing blogging didn't need: centralization.
I appreciate this post - especially with the subscription model and self-selection, what happens when a writer wants to *move on* from writing about the thing that brought them subscribers in the first place?
At some point, the writer finds themselves searching for an extension of the problem, and writing about something they are no longer interested in, but doing it to serve their audience, or the writer finds themselves experimenting and carving new niches, but to the potential detriment of their consistent income stream (current subscribers might not like the new content, and decide to unsubscribe entirely, or revert to being a free subscriber).
One time donations, like in your example, seem underrated.
One disadvantage of the subscription model is that I cannot take out a subscription for each writer I like. I'd prefer an easy way to pay per article. That could also bring blogging back. Curiously, bitcoin was (partly) motivated by making micropayments possible, and we still don't have a convenient way of doing this.
Once we have micropayments and blogging back, we still need to find a way of replacing another service that a centralized platfrom like Substack can easily provide. For example, I found this substack because it was linked from another substack.
But, yes, I would prefer a decentralized world of blogs.