On 10/19/2015 11:44 AM, Jonathan Roberts wrote: > These things may have been discussed already, but these are initial > thoughts from friends looking at the system; ie theoretical potential > patrons. > > 1)It will make the average person nervous to not see a very clear > representation of what they are going to be paying total. This relates > to the other discussion we were having; regardless of whether or not it > gives people the impression that this is a "great bargain" or whatever, > people need to see a very clear presentation of what they will be called > on to pay or they will be very nervous about signing on at all. >
The idea is that they put up (or authorize), say $100, and the only question is the *rate* it goes to *which* projects, which gets determined by the matching pledge democratic system. There's no reason this would make anyone feel uncomfortable. The design just needs to make it clear that this is how it works. In general, feedback about things comes from people in one of two forms (based on a lot of experience I have talking to people): A. So I could be charged *anything*? There's no limit or anything?? That's crazy! or B. Why did you take that time explaining to me that I authorize a certain limit to my funds? It's completely obvious how it would work. Why would anyone not just assume that? And these two seem reasonably split, hard to predict which response I get. > 2)As more people sign on to the system, shouldn't the average pledge > rate go down? If you originally sign on at $1 per 5000 people, but then > 60000 sign on, you don't each need to be paying $12- each person can be > paying much less than the original $1 per 5000, and the collective > result will still be enormous. > Really, you should read more or reread about https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/limits and https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/mechanism The answer is simple: Our entire *goal* is to get to that point where things are funded well enough that the concern is about spreading the burden better. We're nowhere near that goal. We will be an unqualified revolutionary success when we make *that* be our problem. It is a *completely* different situation when we are underfunded and working to raise more funds than when we reach a level of adequate funding. There are two phases here: A. help drastically underfunded projects and move funding from proprietary to FLO projects, B. spread the burden better for well-funded FLO projects. B doesn't basically doesn't exist at all right now, and our wildest dreams are to achieve a world where we're at the B phase. > 3)We should have an option for automatic withdrawal directly from a bank > account. The "snowdrift account" is a great buffer to help some people > feel comfortable, but other people are going to say "I don't want to > have to keep thinking about depositing funds or be reminded of it; I > believe in this enough to just commit to it being directly withdrawn. > Yes, we will support some sort of auto-renewal whether that's auto-deposit or a time-period-based authorization of funds instead of one-time authorization. -- Aaron Wolf Snowdrift.coop <https://snowdrift.coop> _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss
