On 12/22/2016 02:14 PM, Stephen Michel wrote: <snip>
> Although we need to think beyond MVP, we still need to limit our scope. > I am including the following because it strengthens the argument for > this system. > > Please ONLY discuss it insofar as it relates to "should we adopt the > system?". Do NOT discuss specific details of how exactly we'd implement > such a system; they are OUT OF SCOPE right now. > > This system also offers the most elegant solution I have seen so far to > the question, "What if someone wants to support a project beyond > standard patronage?" > > Projects can offer different pledge levels. It's still wordy to explain > in abstract, but it's easy with an example: > > A regular patron pledges, "I will donate $0.001 per patron (including > super-patrons), capped at $2/mo." > A super-patron pledges, "I will donate the same as a regular patron, AND > I will donate an additional $0.01 per super-patron, capped at $20/mo." > An alternate phrasing for is, "I will match regular patrons at their > level, and match super-patrons at a higher level." > > This gives projects a way to customize their income needs (eg, you could > make a super-duper-patron, meant for grants/foundations, where it's $100 > per super-duper-patron, max $2k), while also keeping the number of > different levels manageable (that was the main problem with the > *original* concept of shares, imo -- there's so many different levels > you have to think about). > > Although some ways connected, I'd rather we discuss this issue of different patronage levels on a different thread than the one about designing patronage around set project funding goals.
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss