On 06/01/2015 05:07 AM, mray wrote: > > > 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. > >
Okay, so: I understand the concern that people will adjust their pledges to counteract the network effect. I liked how the full formula version had some support for higher pledges and penalty for reduction. In other words, if you pledged 16 shares in the older formula version and then dropped your pledge back to 4 shares, you would get a message that doing so would mean less matching from others — you would take away more than just your own reduction. That is no longer true with the simplified pledge. I understand your proposal now: have people set a "my pledge will be X" for all their pledges and they simply choose which projects. Here's my feeling for now: First, that doesn't remove the ability counteract the network effect, it just makes it more blunt, because people could still change their levels, it would only be system-wide. I think the better solution to counteract the tendency of patrons working to undermine the network effect is to just design things clearly so they pledge with supporting the network in mind. The new simpler pledge makes that much easier. I propose: A. we have a one-click default pledge button B. we offer the more in-depth pledge options C. we present the pledges as "X per patron" and emphasize the value of the network effect D. we finish prototyping and designing and testing If it turns out that we see too much inclination toward counteracting the network effect, we can change the options available in the advanced pledge form. For example, we could set a maximum level. We could have a small number of fixed options and not offer an "other" field. We could also add the feature for users to set an account-level default pledge amount. The worst case scenario for people counteracting the network effect is that it leads people to not bother pledging because they think their pledge will result in others *reducing* their pledges. We need to be wary about that. The not-so-bad scenario is that as the patron pool grows, more and more people end up toward the minimum pledge, but the patron pool keeps growing. That's okay, and that's even good in terms of the spreading the burden widely among the community. If we had to address the worst case scenario, we could remove control in various ways, including less options for pledging, less per-project variance, and maybe re-institute the extra-matching formula. If we removed the ability for users to vary their pledge between projects, I would want to do so along with letting projects set different base rates because projects certainly vary in their need for funding independently from their audience size. The question becomes whether we put the control to consider this on the patron side or the project side or some of each (such as projects setting different minimums, but patrons still setting different pledge levels per project otherwise). Again, my thinking for now: keep these concerns in mind, but design working prototype emphasizing the mindset we want people to have and hope it all works out fine, tweak as we go. -- Aaron Wolf Snowdrift.coop <https://snowdrift.coop> _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss
