Artists are not paid by subscriptions. They are paid by royalties.
It’s entirely academic, as the market won’t stand for it, but I cannot see that increasing subscriptions by orders of magnitudes 10x or even 20x or 30x helps them out very much because under the present streaming royalty model they still need a threshold of millions of plays for any meaningful recompense. Most of them, just don’t get anywhere close
What does help them out is if streaming services and/or roon drives physical album/download sales as that leaves the old mechanical royalty model intact. For example, In a link further up minimum wage requires 380,000 plays in Spotify. But In the old days a rule of thumb was that artists got about 1 $/£/EUR for each album regardless of whether any individual song was never played or even if the entire album was never played in private collections. Under that model, total plays in private collections could only ever have been orders of magnitude 10’s of thousands and maybe none at all when they couldn’t be found in messed up filling systems (the reason after all why many of us probably got into computer audio in the first place).
But a combination of a singles/play-list streaming culture (where 2 or 3 popular songs on every album now have to do all the royalty heavy lifting) and a substitution of a model requiring 1 album sale with a model requiring 1,500 x 15 x 5 (approx) “streams” per 1 $/£/USD is not sustainable. So, I would prefer roon to support an “ethical” streaming service by integrating physical/download sales as has been commented by several on this thread. I don’t know how representative roonys are though or if for a younger generation physical sales or even downloads is a dying model. There are only 12,878 users on this forum (is that the roon subscription base?) , and only 200 or so ever comment at all and maybe only a few dozen regulars.