On 30.11.2016 07:30, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> tentative 4a. "Our innovative platform empowers you to join with others
> to fund the public goods /you/ care about."
> tentative 4b. "At Snowdrift.coop, you collaborate with others to build
> greater support for public goods."
> I'm not happy with either 4, but the meaning I want to say here is:
> Snowdrift.coop (or "out platform" or similar subject) is about getting
> everyone to collaborate to address question just asked (i.e. to fund
> public goods). It's nice to emphasize that the users get to choose, but
> not sure that needs to be in 4. The only core thing is THIS (our
> platform) is for collaborative funding of public goods. Still need best
> wording for that.

Just "collaboration" does not capture what we are about. Like-minded
people can collaborate without us. We offer a *NEW* way to do so.
A short take that bridges to the following explanation:

my tentative 4c.
  At Snowdrift.coop everybody collaborates in a new way;

> tentative 5a. "You do this with a simple pledge to the projects you care
> about: 'I'll donate $1 for every 1,000 patrons who pledge with me!' And
> you control your overall pledges by setting a monthly budget limit for
> the system."
> tentative 5b. same as 5a but "a tenth of a cent for every patron…"
> instead of the $1 / 1000 version
> We had played with phrases like "donate a tiny amount for *each* patron
> who supports the same projects" but I'm leaning toward just using
> concrete example of the proposed actual pledge amount. That makes it far
> easier for people to get the actual pledge instead of us hinting at
> something while people wonder what it really is.
> As for the budget part, similarly for being concrete, I'd rather go in
> the *direction* of stating explicitly what happens. Something like "you
> set a monthly budget limit, so a pledge that would go beyond your budget
> gets automatically put on hold." Except that brings up all sorts of
> questions, so we can't say all that. But I want to at least hint at the
> clarity that you don't just hit a per-project budget and then stop
> matching (because people who think that and then experience otherwise
> will be annoyed with us more than if we give them the right idea from
> the get-go).
> One bit we had that I like for consideration still: "You choose projects
> to support, and make a pledge…"

Here is a new take:
* being discrete
* visualizing
* working with contrast

my tentative 5c.
  Patrons pledge *only one 10th of a cent*!!...
  – but – for *every* other patron of a project.

  A group of 10 agrees on paying *a cent each*!!...
  – but – A *crowd* of 1000 already agrees to pay a dollar each.

  When a crowd gets too big for you - step back any time.

> tentative 6a. "We call this "crowdmatching", and with this system, our
> support grows together and is directed towards the most promising projects."
> tentative 6b. "This process, which we call *crowdmatching*, builds
> consensus and directs support to the most promising projects."
> tentative 6c. This *crowdmatching* approach means that all the patrons
> of a project reinforce each other, and it naturally builds consensus,
> directing our support to the most promising projects."
> 6c is longer and wordier, but I like the feel and it really draws out
> the feel and meaning the right way to me.

my tentative 6d.
  We call this "crowdmatching"; it is a network effect that reaches
  consensus on what we support.

> FINAL 7. Join us in clearing the path to a free and open future!
> Note: We can *maybe* tweak the FINAL lines before the actual production
> is done but I don't want to discuss them until all lines are in the same
> candidate-for-final state.

I think discussing this in the group was way more productive than I ever
can be alone. Hoping any of my takes help making a step forward...

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Design mailing list

Reply via email to