• UberPeople.NET - Independent community of rideshare drivers. It's FREE to be a person and enjoy all the benefits of membership. JOIN US! CLICK HERE

Tryp Rideshare


Honey Badger
Article Manager
So I already have a thread about Tryp on the Seattle board, and since this is also one of my boards , I'll post here too. I'll just copy and paste from the Seattle board :

I work very closely behind the scenes on the Articles section. Your opinions on the startup Tryp is welcome If you feel you have something to say about Tryp, go ahead and comment in the article.



Yes there is a referral code posted at the end of the article, however the poster's referral code is being allowed in this particular article, in this particular circumstance.The author of the Article, UberHammer has already signed up for Tryp. Any questions on the company he could better answer than me, since I am not signed up with them.

UberPeople.NET is not affiliated with and/or endorsing TRYP.

This is what UberHammer had to say about Tryp in another thread:

UberHammerWell-Known Member

Between the saw and nails

The irony however is that Lyft recruits Uber drivers that way too.

The reason they're not profitable has nothing to do with the revenue to cost ratio of running a rideshare business.

They're unprofitable because of all the costs of developing self driving cars. If both Uber and Lyft stopped their development, they'd be insanely profitable right now.

True. But unlike Uber and Lyft, when drivers quit, Tryp loses revenue.

For example, if Uber/Lyft have a market where there are 100 drivers who do 20,000 rides per month at $10 per ride with a $2.50 booking fee, Uber/Lyft would have $100,000 in revenue per month (20,000 rides times $2.50 is $50,000, and 20,000 rides times $10 is $200,000, times 25% is $50,000, and $50,000 plus $50,000 is $100,000). And the drivers would be making $150,000 ($1500 per driver). If 10 drivers quit, Uber/Lyft would still have the exact same amount of revenue as there are still exactly as many rides with a 25% service fee and booking fee. The remaining 90 drivers would still be making $150,000 (but at $1667 per driver)

However, if Tryp had a market where there are 100 drivers who do 20,000 rides per day at $9.50 per ride with a $1.95 booking fee, Tryp would have $58,900 in revenue per month (20,000 rides times $1.95 is $39,000, 100 drivers paying $199 is $19,900, and $39,000 plus $19,900 is $58,900). And the drivers would be making $170,100 ($1701 per driver). If 10 drivers quit, Tryp's revenue drops to $56,910 (20,000 rides times $1.95 is $39,000, and 90 drivers paying $199 is $17,910, and $39,000 plus $17,910 is $56.910). The remaining 90 drivers would be making $172,090 ($1912 per driver).

So to Uber/Lyft, drivers are NOT customers, because Uber/Lyft lose no revenue when drivers leave and don't come back.

But to Tryp, drivers ARE customers, because Tryp loses revenue when they leave and don't come back.

So to say Tryp has no skin in the game is actually completely opposite. If drivers aren't happy, Tryp loses revenue. Uber/Lyft on the other hand don't give a #### if drivers are happy.

So when it comes to rates, if Tryp loses drivers because rates are too low, then to bring drivers back (and increase their revenue) they would increase rates. If they raised rates to a point where Tryp riders go back to Uber/Lyft because they're now cheaper than Tryp, then Tryp drivers would lose revenue and quit, and Tryp would have to lower rates to get riders back and maximize profit for the drivers. This mechanism is completely absent in the Uber/Lyft model.

In fact, it might be possible that the rider reward points on Tryp might be compelling enough for Tryp drivers to say busy with rates HIGHER than Uber/Lyft, if for example, business travelers opted for Tryp because they got the reward points and they don't care how much the fare costs because their company pays for the fare. This happens alot with business travelers with airfare, hotels and rental cars. They book higher rates because they want the reward points. But again, with the Uber/Lyft model, things like this would never be known, because Uber/Lyft have no skin in the success of their drivers, because the drivers aren't customers to them. They're just hired help. Nothing more.

Without the expense of self driving car research, Tryp can easily afford to take less so that the riders pay less and the drivers make more.

Why would they this do this? Because the easiest way to make money is to see a need and fill that need. Uber and Lyft have created a need, and a HUGE one at that. Drivers need a company that actually give a #### about them. They're quitting, they're picketing, they're striking, they're flooding forums with all their hate towards the two, etc, etc.... So the need is obviously there... and Tryp is simply filling that demand, which is what is supposed to naturally occur in free market capitalistic economy.

They're mistake was bringing on a bunch of MLM industry veterans on board as the first set of "influencers" as they of course know from their experience that in MLMs, success is achieved by recruiting recruiters first (and customers second). So they treated every driver and rideshare social media mogul as an influencer (recruiter) opportunity.... which of course caused the screams of "It's an MLM!!!!! RUN AWAY!!!! RUN AWAY!!!!!"

The fact is the job of driving is completely different than the job of recruiting. And most drivers don't want to be recruiters. If you strip out the whole MLM part (which only exists for recruiting), it's actually a model that is much better for serious drivers. But the 5 hour per week drivers won't like it though.

For the serious drivers, it pays better to drive for Tryp than it does for Uber and Lyft (once a market has been established), has a natural deterrent for oversaturation (the $199 barrier to entry) making the ratio of riders to drivers healthier, and drivers actually get treated like customers. What's not to like about that?

If they had just used Uber and Lyft's referral model of $250 per new driver, $500 per new driver, $1000 per new driver, etc, etc.... instead of an MLM model, all the initial hate that occurred would have been avoided, and serious drivers could actually look at it for what it is.... a better model for them.


Well-Known Member
This cold be the next step in the evolution of rideshare.

It would be nice to see Uber and Lyft go the way of the dinosaurs.


Well-Known Member
With a fee, no thanks unless there is w waiver for a few months to try it. Also haven't read it yet, but is there a contract that locks you into paying that amount and for how long . Also, what are the rates and how are they set? How many riders have signed up in sf market so far. It says you process the payment, does that mean after the ride so a rider could skip out or can you charge before? Can you see where the ride is going before accepting? All of those need to be answered and more before anyone pay any money.


Well-Known Member
Yeesh! So much is wrong with that article.

First there's the assumption that Uber and Lyft are profitable on their core rideshare business. I remember saying the same thing at one point, but the more I look at the numbers, I don't think it's correct. Once you tack on bonuses I believe that core business still loses money, even before adding in the costs of operating that core business. So, to say they'd be "insanely profitable" if they weren't doing other R&D is likely an inaccurate assumption.

Second, the numbers analysis is extremely thin. The numbers are plucked from thin air. I promise they can't raise any investor money on this concept because of this fact.

Third, supply (riders) is never static, but the model proposed here has a fixed cost to drivers of $199. What's the incentive for drivers to go from a platform with no fixed upfront cost to one where its $199. Zero.

Fourth, drivers pissed off at the companies... Meh, given that there are likely 100,000 drivers in the SF area and we can't even collect a gathering of barely 10 pissed off drivers to protest... I think the writer has spent too much time on forums and has a skewed sense of reality.

Fifth, "It pays better to driver for Tryp [...] (once a market has been established)" begs the question: Are there any established markets where this can be shown to be true? If this were consistently true (I mean, come on, U/L are "insanely profitable" on their core businesses) then $199 would not be a barrier to entry at all. Anyone can find $200 if it'll make them a lot more.

Who knows, though, maybe these guys could pull something off. I sincerely doubt it, but I've been wrong before. What rubs me wrong is that the whole pitch reeks of vaporware. Anyone who's done software development knows you develop, launch, and then market. It feels like they're trying to do this in the reverse order, and that just won't fly.

These guys need to spend their time looking for an angel investor. Develop the platform on their own nickel, on their own time. GIVE away the service (to riders and drivers) to build a beach head. And only then start working toward their revenue model. Anything else is dead in the water.


Well-Known Member
Past Sponsor
Anyone who's done software development knows you develop, launch, and then market.
I was a sales engineer for a Fortune 500 silicon valley software company for 10 years and can say this is absolutely false. Half my job was presenting what we going to release in the next quarter or later this year. If you don't have people lined up to buy it on release date, then you did your job wrong.


Well-Known Member
I was a sales engineer for a Fortune 500 silicon valley software company for 10 years and can say this is absolutely false. Half my job was presenting what we going to release in the next quarter or later this year. If you don't have people lined up to buy it on release date, then you did your job wrong.
Yes. That is true for a Fortune 500 company. It is NOT true for startups. Venture capital won't even touch you if you don't already have a significant user base. They expect you to keep your day job, bust your butt in off hours to build your business until you can show a growing user base. Even to get accepted into an incubator you have to show traction, and then they're mostly funding you by offering you space and services in exchange for equity.

Also understand, large, well-established tech companies can do the reverse order because, a) they have an existing user base and revenue streams, b) they have a track record of bringing product to market, and c) they have the infrastructure and staffing to bring product to market.

Startups don't.


Well-Known Member
I’ve heard of Tryp back in November. They said they’ll launch soon in December. December came and they said they’ll launch in January...
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Oscar Levant Advice 19
UofMDriver Detroit 3
ROUGUE X Chicago 31

Similar threads