On 09.08.2016 22:43, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> 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
> though.

I support Michaels view of preferring percentage.
We need to have a simple, clear agenda across all current or future
payment processors. A plain dollar might be clearer for one service, but
as soon as there are more it gets confusing.

We should be able to promise: "Fees are never over 10%. Ever."
That will always make sense and does not seem arbitrary.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Discuss mailing list

Reply via email to