On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Aaron Wolf <[email protected]>
wrote:
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.
Hmm. So maybe the takeaway here is that we just need to be careful with
our messaging and we should be OK.
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.
:)
~S
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss
