On 08/09/2016 12:59 PM, Bryan Richter wrote:

>> 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. 

First, I like transparently displaying the actual policy.

Second, the percentage can vary by processor. So, Dwolla takes no fee,
and thus there's no minimum charge when using Dwolla. But say there was
a processor that took a strict 5% fee — I guess we'd accept that at any
level if we felt it was okay to use (even though that would be higher
fee for medium and higher charges vs Stripe). But since this is all
post-MVP, we can ignore this point.

The main reason is that people are actually used to seeing fees as
percentages. Most crowdfunding sites take a percentage fee (even though
that's unjustified — Kickstarter has no real justification besides "we
can" for taking a full 5% of a $10,000,000 project given that their
costs are about the same as for a $10,000 project. We can discuss the
merits of fixed amounts versus percentages, but percentage is the common
thing people are used to and compare. We use percentage in our own
charts at https://wiki.snowdrift.coop/market-research/other-crowdfunding

I'll give some deference to Robert or others in the design area of this

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Discuss mailing list

Reply via email to