On 24.06.2016 11:22, Aaron Wolf wrote: > > ...</snip> > > FWIW, I agree with everything Michael wrote in his reply here. I also > find that even right here in this discussion the term "crowdmatching" > seems very effective at capturing the nuance. Michael was able to > express it as "this is the activity you are doing: crowdmatching" and > it's easy to jump to "therefore, you can't just set a fixed hard limit > that you stick to (like that you match only the first 4,000 patrons and > don't match beyond that) because that would not be fully crowdmatching, > of course.
A valid pledge is valid crowdmatching, always. Even if it isn't with one more patron. It then might cease to be crowdmatching *then*, but it also isn't a valid pledge *then* anymore either. It is just how reaching your limit naturally looks like. The experience of reaching a limit should make you proud since you literally went to your limits, and it generally means you lifted the stone high enough to let stronger people overtake - but also remain ready to help out when they may be gone one day. Lets not add stigma to reaching the limit. We simply can't *know* when people set a $10 limit because they are dull, lazy, cowards or just broke. > > I think if we explain all the reasoning, concepts etc. with the idea of > "crowdmatching", everything will become clear and consistent. > > I'm not actually proposing this, but it occurs to me that an extension > of the slogan could then be something like "crowdmatching to free the > commons" or "free the commons with crowdmatching" or even just > "crowdmatching for the commons" (I don't like that because it implies > that you could crowdmatch for other purposes, and I want to insist that > public goods are the *only* legitimate type of thing in which > crowdmatching makes sense (even if that's debatable, I want us to take > that position — that crowdmatching for proprietary stuff makes no sense). > > One more point: even though varying per-patron match levels may not > strictly be the smallest possible way for us to get an operating system, > it's at least arguable that including it may be necessary for the system > to start out viable enough to successfully fund the Snowdrift.coop > project. We don't want it to undo the network effect, but we certainly > want the 1000 patrons we may get early on to total more than $1,000 per > month if a portion of those patrons are wealthy and want to be at a more > generous crowdmatching level. So, I'm not 100% sure that setting higher > pledge base is not MVP. We need not only for the math and the system to > work but for it to be a fundraising success enough that people don't > write it off. My feeling is that having this as a factor to play with, > maybe test, explore, A/B, research, etc. makes some sense. > For *our* purposes it should suffice to just globally raise the $0.001 when people don't reach a critical mass.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
