Why LinkedIn is not a marketplace?

Suppose you want to find a job or an employee. You create a LinkedIn profile for free. But you notice that basic features are limited. And there are some advanced features you can get for a fixed monthly price. Sounds like an obvious, good business model, right? But it's not that good.

Let's just think about it for a moment. A candidate provides some data about herself to a third party (LinkedIn) so that potential employers can see this data. And everyone pays to that third party. Now it sounds like a dumb shit. On the other hand, the premium features do not bring a reasonable value. Finally, the whole platform is slow and doesn't update much in years.

Why can't the candidate earn from her data? In other words, receiving payments each time potential employers see her profile. And the third party (LinkedIn) just gets the commission.

This is a marketplace business model. And it looks like a much better solution for every side of the table. 1) Users get paid from profile views. Ultimately converting their CVs into digital assets and generating an income from it. This solution motivates people to thoroughly fill out their profiles and update them timely. Of course, all profiles should be private. 2) Employers/Recruiters pay only for the profiles they need. In other words, paying directly to the owners of data, not for the whole database. This solution makes spending reasonable. Also, all profiles now contain detailed and up-to-date information. 3) The platform gets a much higher income. Since now it's connected to the number of views, or user activity, not to the number of premium subscribers. Second, the CLV is much higher and the CAC is much lower, as compared to the current model. Third, all users get the advanced features, making the platform more pleasant to use.

So why LinkedIn is not a marketplace? Sometimes we just agree to the status quo models without questioning and rethinking them.