# Re: [Snowdrift-discuss] How the limit works

```
On August 9, 2016 10:51:36 PM GMT+03:00, Aaron Wolf <aa...@snowdrift.coop>
wrote:
>On 08/09/2016 12:37 PM, Michael Siepmann wrote:
>>  On 08/09/2016 11:20 AM, Bryan Richter wrote:
>>
>>> <snip>
>>> There are three things being discussed here, so I want to provide
>>> space to think about them separately.
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> Finally, how is the minimum sensible pledge displayed: as a dollar
>>> amount, or as a ratio? I think it's clear that the amount should be
>>> *calculated* as a ratio, but I'm not certain that *displaying* it as
>a
>>> ratio is best. But I don't actually know. Any opinions here?
>>>
>>> I'm personally partial to dollar amounts because it provides an
>>> (algorithmic) level of indirection. If we say we charge <=10%, and
>>> then Stripe changes its fees faster than we can adapt, we'd be
>lying.
>>> But if we say, "We won't charge you for amounts less than 2 bucks",
>>> that's totally within our control. We would simply use the ratio as
>a
>>> rough guide for future corrections.
>>
>> This makes sense to me.  However, if we're displaying a dollar amount
>I
>> do think we do need to round it at least to a quarter or half dollar,
>so
>> it doesn't seem mysteriously arbitrary.  For example, since \$3.66
>> corresponds to just under 10%, if we use dollar amounts, I'd suggest
>> \$3.75 or \$3.50.  Then in future if we support multiple payment
>> processors, they could have different minimums if necessary, which
>could
>> also be changed if they change their fees.  I think dollar amounts
>are
>> easier for the user to understand in terms of knowing what determines
>> whether they're charged in a given month, so I'd favor dollar amounts
>> provided we round to at least a quarter.  In this case we're using
>the
>> ratio calculation in order to decide on a sensible rounded minimum
>> dollar charge, and then allowing the maximum percentage to be a weird
>> arbitrary number that we don't present to users. For example if the
>> minimum charge for Stripe is \$3.50 then with their current charges,
>the
>> maximum percentage is about 11.2%.  I think that's fine as long as we
>> don't talk about percentages to the user.  In other words, I think we
>> either say something like "Minimum charge is \$3.50" (but don't make
>it
>> \$3.66) or something like "Maximum percentage is 10%" (but don't make
>it
>> 11.2%).
>>
>
>I'm with Michael actually. I change my vote to 10% max fee.```
```
Sweet. Let's consider that point settled.

>
>Also, I strongly support displaying it publicly that way "we only
>charge
>if the fee to processor is less than 10% of the total".

I will admit that the argument about sudden fee changes is a bit weak. But I'm
curious; what is the benefit to displaying a percentage that makes you strongly
prefer it? I still think a level of indirection is a good thing. It almost
always is in software.
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss
```