The new formula would be: Specify an amount you will pledge per patron.
That's it. Minimum pledge is 0.1¢ per patron. In other words, there's barely even really something worth calling a formula any more. Your donation will be your pledge amount multiplied by the number of patrons. I'll probably deprecate the formula page on the wiki and keep it as just a more complex proposal we could choose to implement later if it seems to make sense or the community supports it. We will still need to determine the best design in terms of whether to *offer* an open-ended pledge or what suggested amounts to offer. The important factor would be that you count as a patron for the matching by pledging at least the minimum. As before, to be a full patron in good standing, such as right to join the co-op given patronage of the site, you will need to have actually donated during both of the past two months. On 05/30/2015 10:54 AM, Mike Linksvayer wrote: > I'm all for simplification and probably agree both shares and logarithms > make system harder to understand, but for clarity could you spell out > exactly what the new formula would be? > > Mike > > On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 10:36 AM, Aaron Wolf <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > So, along with other folks in the community questioning things and > thinking about design, I've continued to butt up against the complexity > of explaining "shares" and what different pledge levels mean. > > I don't think we should completely shy away from promoting new > unfamiliar ideas, but we need to be able to be understandable. We need > at least that if someone else takes the time to understand us well, they > will generally be capable of explaining us effectively to others. And we > need the interface to be understandable and clear. > > There are two reasons that I wanted the whole logarithmic matching of > extra "shares". 1. To avoid the awkwardness in someone realizing that > they count double if they open two separate accounts (better to count > them as extra when they pledge extra from the one account, although that > *has* to taper so things aren't volatile and susceptible to dramatic > manipulation). 2. To encourage people to pledge extra (although that was > confusing given that we want people to understand the matching idea and > not pledge higher than actually makes sense). > > I found that the cleanest, clearest way to express pledging is: > > "I pledge 0.1¢ per patron" or "I pledge 1.4¢ per patron" etc. > > That brings to mind the image of thinking about all the other patrons > and how you are connected to them and we are working together. We > obviously show the total number of patrons. > > Now, if your actual donation is different than your pledge amount * > number of patrons, that's confusing. Abstracting it away to "shares" > just makes it even more opaque. > > It was a long process of pushing to keep the logarithm before I've come > to accept that it makes sense to drop it. Without the extra matching, we > have a simpler system, just a step or two removed from what people are > already familiar with. It still will take some getting used to, but it > will be *less* complexity in design, in coding, in presentation, etc. > Everything will be more comfortable without it. There will be no > logarithm to explain. > > What about the two issues mentioned above? > > Well, the one about duplicate accounts was speculative. We have other > ways to discourage that, such as checking different financial > information. Also, setting up an account is a bit too complex to easily > duplicate. The worst case scenario of having some duplicate accounts > isn't fatal. Maybe it's fine enough for someone to have a couple > accounts which is almost like saying you sponsor your kid or neighbor > and have an account in their name. > > As for encouraging larger donations within reason: giving more still > gives extra to the project, and it still is part of the network effect > here in that it provides additional matching to others. The message is: > "pledge more so that you provide even stronger incentive for others to > come help (because you give that much more when they join)." > > At any rate, we can always bring the logarithm back in. We're only > prototyping at this point. Bringing it back after launch would be much > harder but not impossible. > > I think, realistically, dropping it will make our launch more successful > and improve all our design and make everything easier and simpler with > little loss. > > Obviously, everyone is welcome to weigh in on this and share thoughts > and concerns. > > Cheers, > Aaron > > -- > Aaron Wolf Snowdrift.coop <https://snowdrift.coop> > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > http://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > -- Aaron Wolf Snowdrift.coop <https://snowdrift.coop> _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss
