On 01.06.2015 08:14, Aaron Wolf wrote: > 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. >
That sounds like a reasonable feature if we allow for different pledge amounts per project. > Similarly, we could add a feature for projects to set their own > different minimums, but again, for a later time. Interesting take on the control thing, too. > > 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. I think having control over whether being a patron or not is pretty essential. And eventually enough control. The option to un-pledge seems like an effective punishment. I see how it lacks fine grained control. But lets not forget this is a double sided edge: when users control weigh among projects they'll use that control to counter-regulate the network effect. In other words: they'll start to correct the network effect in order to balance their referred projects. This reduces or even eliminates the network effect since everybody starts paying more or less the amount they feel ok with - just as if there was no network effect. I'm proposing to put weight on your vote, not your preference. Effectively giving people the choice to set their financial value in the FLO ecosystem. Of course this puts a big burden on us to define what FLO ecosystem gets formed around Snowdrift.coop. > > 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. > No, I think that would be a new way to look at it - one that I would regard problematic, too. I'm talking about putting just two main levers in users hands: 1. how much do you plege when you plege. 2. what projects do you support.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss
