> On August 9, 2016 4:55:17 PM EDT, Michael Siepmann <m...@techdesignpsych.com> 
> wrote:
> >I'd add that whether we display a minimum charge or a maximum
> >percentage, the fact is that we're using the percentage as our
> >guide as to what's a reasonable threshold, so it's more informative
> >to display a percentage, and connects more directly to what the
> >user cares about. They care about how much of their money is going
> >to projects vs overhead, and "fee always under 10%" clearly
> >communicates a meaningful limit on that, whereas "charge never
> >below $3.50" leaves it unclear exactly why we choose that limit and
> >what it translates to in terms of what they care about.

I think that's settled then. "fee always under 10%" is very clear to
me. I think some of the arguments against whole dollar amounts are
invalid, but it doesn't matter. Let's consider it settled that the
limit will be specified in terms of the fee percentage.

On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 07:59:39PM -0400, Stephen Michel wrote:
> But, I don't feel *that* strongly about it and we also have to
> balance our desire to keep fees low for users with our desire for
> payouts to, well, actually happen.

Exactly. $1/month is sort of what I consider the threshold for
viability, and we're already talking about payouts only happening once
every 3.5 months. :) Not that that is a problem: most patrons will
probably be pledged to more than one viable project, *and* patrons
will eventually be evenly spread in terms of which month they joined
and pay out.

And yeah, post-MVP has a whole universe of possibilities, which we can
ignore for now.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Discuss mailing list

Reply via email to