On March 7, 2017 1:39:40 PM EST, Aaron Wolf <aa...@snowdrift.coop> wrote:
>On 03/07/2017 10:25 AM, Tufts wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 1:15 PM, Aaron Wolf <aa...@snowdrift.coop>
>>> On 03/07/2017 09:06 AM, Tufts wrote:
>>>     It will be interesting to see how this works out. ----------
>>>     Forwarded message ---------- From: Tom Smith <odl-giv...@mit.edu
>>>     <mailto:odl-giv...@mit.edu>> Subject: Save the Date for The MIT
>>>     24-hour Challenge Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2017 12:21:36 -0500 To:
>>>     stephen.mic...@tufts.edu <mailto:stephen.mic...@tufts.edu> Save
>>>     the Date for The MIT 24-hour Challenge MIT's 24-hour Challenge
>>>     Pi Day! View this email in your browser
>>>     Dear , We are excited to participate in the first MIT 24-hour
>>>     Challenge! The goal is to encourage 1,500 people to donate
>>>     – at any amount – on one day, March 14th (Pi Day). If we reach
>>>     this goal then MIT will receive a $150,000 gift from a generous
>>>     donor. The clock starts at 12AM on March 14 and will run until
>>>     11:59PM EST. In the meantime, please consider becoming a
>>>     ambassador
>>>     and help us raise awareness about the challenge. We look forward
>>>     to keeping you posted on the giving day and we hope you'll
>>>     consider helping us reach our goal. Sincerely, Tom Smith 
>>> As I've said generally, this sort of matching is good (way better
>>> no matching), but there's no risk reduction (all donations go ahead
>>> matter what), and the threshold means I, as an individual can say "I
>>> like this, but too busy too worry about it, I hope others will hit
>>> threshold. But it's a good campaign as campaigns go anyway.
>> It does do one thing differently than other matching campaigns, which
>> that the amount of each person's donation doesn't matter; it only
>> matters that 1500 people donate. It is a similar to snowdrift in that
>> tries to reduce barriers to donation.
>> We do that better because your donation also incentivizes others to
>> donate, whereas here your donation is still unilateral. And theirs is
>> also a hard cutoff instead of scaling.
>> It will still be interesting to see what happens. Perhaps some
>> interesting conclusions about how much participation this gets
>> to standard matches.
>Oh yeah, that's true! Now that you emphasize it, I've not seen a match
>based on donor numbers before, only based on dollars!
>Incentive, of course, to take your $10 and give it to 5 friends to each
>have them donate instead of you donating it all (an issue
>has in some respects too) — I doubt this is a big issue though.

Honestly as long as there's a good way to mitigate people donating multiple 
times using throwaway identities, I don't think this is actually an issue (in 
either system). Sure, you've (in some sense) gamed the system so you have a 
bigger impact with the same amount out of your pocket -- but you've also spread 
the word to 5 friends.
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Discuss mailing list

Reply via email to