Question is:

Why to pay  20$ per a picture instead of 2$, and what it is worth about 10x cost of image with mid RF license?

Or,

what costumer get more with "midRF" licence?

We saw today new premium collection on Cutcaster "Betta than Vetta", something like IS's "Vetta" but different type of licence...

Very confusing...

I think the real question is: why are our images being sold for $2 when buyers seem to be willing to pay $20

A good question indeed.
It should be a supply and demand thing.
Hundreds of shots available of an apple isolated on white.... that of course should be a $2 shot.
Multiple models, professional make-up, expensive/exotic location etc, etc, needs to be a $20 or more image. 

Question is:

Why to pay  20$ per a picture instead of 2$, and what it is worth about 10x cost of image with mid RF license?

Because:

• customer does only know the place where the price is 20$
• doesn't want to spend the time searching multiple sites
• gets (perceives to get) a better customer service
• thinks 20$ is cheap compared to the 200$ he used to pay and doesn't look any further

I think it has got nothing to do with what you get, but with marketing. I doubt that many buyers have a deeper knowledge about the variety of stock sites out there in the web...

Why does it always come down to complaining rather than answering a legitimate question? I would also like to know the usage differences...

There has been such a catastrophic explosion in both the supply and the demand for images (the latter being primarily fueled by low prices) over the last few years that the market has yet to find it's level.

As Ron Chappel (Iophoto) observed a while back, in the future there won't be 'micro' and 'macro' stock __ just 'stock'. It is pretty obvious when you think about it.

With the market in such disarray I'm not sure that there's that much value in comparing the minutiae of licencing models unless you happen to be a buyer right now with a specific need.

Micro prices are rising and macro prices are dropping. Give it another 5-10 years at most and the terms micro and macro will probably become largely meaningless other than for very high-end or specialist agencies.

Question is:

Why to pay  20$ per a picture instead of 2$, and what it is worth about 10x cost of image with mid RF license?
Or,
what costumer get more with "midRF" licence?

We saw today new premium collection on Cutcaster "Betta than Vetta", something like IS's "Vetta" but different type of licence...

Very confusing...

There are several answers, the 2$ RF image from microstock is not a 'free for all uses' and has licence limitations for use, these limitations can be lifted by the purchase of an extended licence which will bring it closer to a 20$ midstock image.

Most images in these collections and on dedicated midstock or macrostock websites are just not available in the microstock libraries for $2, the type of customer and the expectations of buyers are often different, there are cases where a Photographer will upload the same images to all libraries.

Some buyers will only shop with midstock or macrostock websites, the good thing about these midstock collections on the microstock websites is that buyers might not shop round trying to find the same image cheaper if they know that the images are not available in the general microstock library.

For a buyer the 'best fit' of an image to the end clients requirement is the real driver, if this image comes at $2 and not $20, it is just a bonus for the buyer as they would have paid $20 for the right image.

David