Hi Robert, Glad to hear your support for this. I think you'll find it much easier to design the right experience around this simpler system.
Now, I'm not sure I fully understand your post, but: I could imagine users setting a different default level for initial pledges instead of the 0.1¢ minimum, but that's an extra feature to add after things are working. Similarly, we could add a feature for projects to set their own different minimums, but again, for a later time. I think it is important for patrons to choose to donate extra to their favorite projects because that freedom will make people more comfortable *and* it is part of the accountability. We care a lot about bringing more power and control to the patron community instead of projects having all the power. Patrons give up some individual control by working together in the network for *consensus*, but we want the patrons to be able to reward or punish projects for whether the projects do the best work or meet the highest honor goals or not. Now, I'm not sure what "account-wide matching" means. Do you mean "system-wide" as in "I donate 0.1¢ to *my chosen projects* for each patron who gives to *any* project? I definitely would not like that idea as it undermines the whole nature of focusing the community on consensus projects. Cheers, Aaron On 05/31/2015 06:07 PM, mray wrote: > Hi there, > > I'm happy how simple things have become with the latest change. But the > scope of this remains something that makes me ponder: Do we want the > matching amount (minimum 0.1¢) project wide or account wide? > > Account wide certainly has the charm of being the way simpler solution > but takes away control from the user. I see how that control is relevant > in cases where the user has a STRONG interest in a small project but > JUST approves more popular ones. That loss of control might easily > trigger the following reaction: Instead of supporting all support-worthy > projects only the users "favorites" will get support. In other words we > lose lots of pledges, which goes against our initial interest (we want > many people pledging many projects). > But keeping pondering I realize that losing control actually is in our > initial interest, too (people should be happy with the matching that > happens). Losing control also avoids having to care about how you set up > your project differently. Imagine how to distribute increase/decrease of > financial support when all projects are setup differently. > > Currently I tend to go for simple and less control. > I guess I like the dynamic of having a voice in deciding what projects > rock and giving the voice its weight. > > > Robert > > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://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
