(apologies ahead of time - I wanted to condense my replies, but messed up. It’s been a long day 
)
@Shinchan
Hello! Thank you so much for the reply. This is very good to hear, especially coming from a studio manager.
This is the kind of thing that keeps me going. Trust me, there are times I wanted to hang it up, especially with the state of everything these days.
So, thanks for your vote of confidence. Really appreciate that. 
@sozap
These are fair points, and honestly the overhead/sustainability question is the one I think about most. You’re right that a “2 hour” gig isn’t really 2 hours once you factor in file exchange and back-and-forth — that’s a real tax, and I don’t think any micro-task platform fully escapes it. Worth saying though — the time spent finding the gig itself isn’t really unique to this; that’s true of freelancing in general. You don’t bill a client for the time you spent finding them either. The back-and-forth and file handoff is the more legitimate overhead to factor in.
A couple things I’d say in response to the broader point:
The pricing formula gives the requester a starting point, not a fixed number — they can adjust it up if a task genuinely needs more for someone to take it seriously. So if the market says “no one’s claiming this at this price,” that’s signal, and the price moves. I’m also looking at a bidding/quote mechanism down the line, so freelancers can push back on lowball asks rather than just declining silently.
On “sustaining a living” specifically — I want to be upfront, because I’ve been direct about this elsewhere too: RapidGig isn’t positioned to replace anyone’s primary income, and I’m not going to pretend otherwise to make the pitch sound bigger than it is. This is meant to supplement — fill the gaps between bigger projects, monetize idle time, pick up the kind of bounded task that doesn’t justify a full contract. If someone’s expecting to sustain a living on it, that’s the wrong expectation to set, and I’d rather say that now than have someone find out the hard way later.
Think of it like a tool in a toolbox — you don’t need needle-nose pliers or an Allen wrench for every job, but when you need one, it’s exactly the right thing to reach for. RapidGig isn’t trying to be the only tool. It’s one more option for a specific kind of job.
On quality — same honesty applies. Early on, it’s going to be a bit dicey. There’s no way around that with a new platform; the pool of active freelancers is small and untested. What I’m leaning on long-term is a rating system, similar to what works on other gig platforms — community-driven quality control, where consensus from real completed work surfaces who’s actually good. That only works once there’s enough volume for ratings to mean something, so right now it’s more vetting-by-necessity than a mature reputation system. That’s a real limitation today, not a hidden one.
On the rigging point — agreed, and I’d say that’s not really what this is built for. Multi-day, iterative, animator-in-the-loop rigging is a different category of work than what fits a bounded gig. This is more for the well-scoped, hand-off-able tasks — a retopo pass, a UV unwrap, a specific fix — not ongoing production work.
The studio-relationship point is real too, and I don’t think it conflicts with what the studio manager was describing. A trusted in-house bench and a platform for new/niche/overflow needs aren’t mutually exclusive — most studios still occasionally need someone outside their regular circle, especially for a skill nobody on the team has. That’s the gap I’m aiming at, not replacing the relationships that already work.
Honestly, a lot of this is still best-guess and reference-pulling from how other gig platforms have handled sustainability — I don’t have enough live volume yet to say definitively how the economics shake out for freelancers long-term. That’s exactly the kind of thing I expect to learn from real usage, and feedback like this is genuinely useful for shaping it before it calcifies into bad defaults.