On 30.11.2016 07:30, Aaron Wolf wrote: > tentative 4a. "Our innovative platform empowers you to join with others > to fund the public goods /you/ care about." > > tentative 4b. "At Snowdrift.coop, you collaborate with others to build > greater support for public goods." > > I'm not happy with either 4, but the meaning I want to say here is: > Snowdrift.coop (or "out platform" or similar subject) is about getting > everyone to collaborate to address question just asked (i.e. to fund > public goods). It's nice to emphasize that the users get to choose, but > not sure that needs to be in 4. The only core thing is THIS (our > platform) is for collaborative funding of public goods. Still need best > wording for that. >
Just "collaboration" does not capture what we are about. Like-minded people can collaborate without us. We offer a *NEW* way to do so. A short take that bridges to the following explanation: my tentative 4c. At Snowdrift.coop everybody collaborates in a new way; > > tentative 5a. "You do this with a simple pledge to the projects you care > about: 'I'll donate $1 for every 1,000 patrons who pledge with me!' And > you control your overall pledges by setting a monthly budget limit for > the system." > > tentative 5b. same as 5a but "a tenth of a cent for every patron…" > instead of the $1 / 1000 version > > We had played with phrases like "donate a tiny amount for *each* patron > who supports the same projects" but I'm leaning toward just using > concrete example of the proposed actual pledge amount. That makes it far > easier for people to get the actual pledge instead of us hinting at > something while people wonder what it really is. > > As for the budget part, similarly for being concrete, I'd rather go in > the *direction* of stating explicitly what happens. Something like "you > set a monthly budget limit, so a pledge that would go beyond your budget > gets automatically put on hold." Except that brings up all sorts of > questions, so we can't say all that. But I want to at least hint at the > clarity that you don't just hit a per-project budget and then stop > matching (because people who think that and then experience otherwise > will be annoyed with us more than if we give them the right idea from > the get-go). > > One bit we had that I like for consideration still: "You choose projects > to support, and make a pledge…" > Here is a new take: * being discrete * visualizing * working with contrast my tentative 5c. Patrons pledge *only one 10th of a cent*!!... – but – for *every* other patron of a project. A group of 10 agrees on paying *a cent each*!!... – but – A *crowd* of 1000 already agrees to pay a dollar each. When a crowd gets too big for you - step back any time. > tentative 6a. "We call this "crowdmatching", and with this system, our > support grows together and is directed towards the most promising projects." > > tentative 6b. "This process, which we call *crowdmatching*, builds > consensus and directs support to the most promising projects." > > tentative 6c. This *crowdmatching* approach means that all the patrons > of a project reinforce each other, and it naturally builds consensus, > directing our support to the most promising projects." > > 6c is longer and wordier, but I like the feel and it really draws out > the feel and meaning the right way to me. my tentative 6d. We call this "crowdmatching"; it is a network effect that reaches consensus on what we support. > > FINAL 7. Join us in clearing the path to a free and open future! > > Note: We can *maybe* tweak the FINAL lines before the actual production > is done but I don't want to discuss them until all lines are in the same > candidate-for-final state. > > I think discussing this in the group was way more productive than I ever can be alone. Hoping any of my takes help making a step forward...
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
