On 12/22/2016 02:14 PM, Stephen Michel wrote:


> 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.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Discuss mailing list

Reply via email to