Great, thanks Aaron, Bryan, and David for explanations. I still like my ancient proposal for 1 cent per donor with a per donor specified max so as to eliminate scariness of fractions of a cent and seemingly (but I know, not really) unbounded liability, but where we are now is great, should be much more easily explained.
Mike On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 11:23 PM, Aaron Wolf <[email protected]> wrote: > 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] https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss
