We're getting close!! We need to work on the last pre-sign-off line(s)
to solidify this thing.

I'm happy to suggest as a final draft for everything except the
second-to-last section.


1. Things like software, music, journalism, and research *can* be public
goods, freely used and shared by *everyone*.

2. But instead, publishers typically add restrictions in order to secure

3. Meanwhile, projects releasing their work under free and open terms

4. To address this dilemma, we developed a new fundraising method we
call crowd**matching**.

5. Rather than donate alone, you pledge to make a monthly contribution
of 1 cent for every 10 patrons who give to the same project with you.

6. 1,000 patrons donating $1 is $1,000, but with 5,000 patrons at just
$5 each, a project would receive $25,000 a month!

7. ??? [see notes below; something mentioning budget (probably vague,
just giving idea that you can learn more reading the how-it-works page)
and emphasizing the positive qualities of the system as a whole]

8. Join Snowdrift.coop today, and help clear the path to a free and open


Aaron's thoughts on 7:
    * goal: an inspiring and informative vision of the system overall
    * must mention budget
    * avoid vague claims, buzzwords, marketing-speak in favor of factual
informative content
    * the vision can emphasize any of:
        * pledging to many projects
        * only donating much to those that have buy-in from others /
those projects "people value most" (consensus, avoiding fragmentation /
a few successful projects is better than many failing ones)
        * a budget where projects that get *too* popular get cut off
            * no time here but ideal impression of how this mediates
runaway growth, and a popular project doesn't *directly* cause the drop
of another project
        * you have control to stay on-board with a super popular project
by either (A) dropping others or (B) increasing your budget
        * you can observe over time to favor those projects that make
the most impact (accountability)
        * your pledges are part of inviting others to pledge
        * providing sustainable, reliable salaries to project teams
    * we only have time for some of these things
    * "directs your budget to most-valued" ideas are misleading in that
it only applies *before* hitting your limit. At your limit, projects
that get popular will be dropped first.
    *  To ensure people have a clear sense of budget or at least open
questions and not misunderstandings, these are the implications to avoid:
        * wrong: you always give your whole budget
        * wrong: you can always keep donating without passing your limit
(effectively reneging on the matching pledge)
        * wrong: you can set a different budget for each project
    * we have at most about 15 seconds for whatever best compromise of
these things we can achieve

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Design mailing list

Reply via email to