// Anon — Partnership Proposal Outline (8/25/23) // Anon — Partnership Proposal Outline (8/25/23)


  • We are excited about this partnership between and Anon.
  • The aim here is to create a pricing proposal that is simple, provides a price discount as an early partner, and involves a minimum monthly commitment to justify that Anon is allocating significant resources to this partnership.

Product Scope

  • Anon will deliver a client-side SDK (Google Chrome) that enables users to authenticate and connect various messaging platforms via Anon.
    • A mobile (iOS) SDK can also be made available to, but isn’t covered in this agreement.
  • Anon will also deliver a server-side SDK that enables to receive authenticated user browser sessions that can be configured to send/receive messages on behalf of users.
  • Our plan is to deliver integrations in 2 phases:
    • In Phase 1, Anon plans to support LinkedIn, Twitter, Instagram, and FB Messenger.
    • In Phase 2, Anon will aim to support WhatsApp, Discord, and Slack.
    • A future Phase 3 might include Telegram, Signal, and/or iMessage; however, these may be limited to certain client SDKs such as MacOS apps only, or may not be available at all depending on technical limitations.
  • Once authenticated, Anon will deliver authenticated user sessions to on the above platforms, which can then be configured to send and receive messages via the messaging platforms on behalf of its creators.
Integrations: We have verified our LinkedIn integration and are most of the way with Twitter. Instagram and FB Messenger are high in the priority queue but have not been verified. We will let you know as soon as we have confirmation on these. We can’t guarantee exactly when Phase 2 integrations will be complete. We expect to have them by month 3, but this isn’t guaranteed as part of the contract.
Messaging automation: Typically, Anon delivers authenticated sessions to developers, not the browser automation to take actions (in this case, sending a message). In this instance, we think the work is relatively simple and are open to building the end-to-end integration. We also understand you may want to build/own this part of the stack. This is a relatively small point, but it’s the only outstanding question I could think of so wanted to highlight here.

Proposed Terms


  • Anon proposes an integration period followed by a 6-month partnership agreement. Baseline pricing will start at $2,000/month for the first 3 months, then move to $4,250/month for the final 3 months. Variable pricing in excess of baseline volumes will cost extra.

Pricing Terms

  • Total term length: 7 months
  • Deployment periods and pricing:
    • Integration and testing (month 1): $0/month
    • Initial deployment (months 2, 3, 4): $2,000/month baseline + variable pricing
    • At-scale engagement (months 5, 6, 7): $4,250/month baseline + variable pricing
  • Utilization limits and variable pricing:
    • The baseline price includes up to 2,000 users/month for months 2-4
    • The baseline price includes up to 4,250 users/month for months 5-7
    • Above baseline:
      • Up to 10k users: $1.00/month/user
      • Up to 25k users: $0.75/month/user
      • Up to 50k users: $0.50/month/user
      • 50k+ users: $0.25/month/user
Pricing changes: Anon originally proposed $2.5k/month for 2 months, then $5k/month for 4 months on a 6-month contract ($25k total). countered with $1.5k for 3 months, then $3.5k/month for 3 months ($15k total). We accepted the 3/3 month split, but met in the middle with $2.0k/month and $4.25k/month ($18.75k total).
Baseline + variable pricing: We tried to set a high monthly usage threshold for baseline pricing. We did need to add variable pricing, though, to account for Anon’s infrastructure costs if is wildly successful and onboards a ton of users in a short period of time.
Pricing considerations: Pricing takes into account the opportunity cost of the exclusivity clause and the allocation of significant engineering and support resources to be dedicated to’s use case.