Re: [Discuss] Proposal: Simplified Defunding Mechanism

[mray]

On 24.09.2015 01:14, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> I want to stay a continuous
> patron without any missed months.

Why is that something we care about?
Why don't we want to stick as pledege == count?
If you calculate too narrow, if a project UNFORTUNATELY gets too
successful, if you just don't pay enough attention, ... then I think it
is perfectly fine to have a "gap" in your history.

If that turns out to be a problem somewhere I'd rather fix that on that
side than marking people as patrons that didn't pledge.
The pledging system should not allow for that kind of fuzziness, we're
toying around with credibility of the numbers we show next to the
projects, they have to be descriptive and dead accurate without knowing
some extra rules.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Proposal: Simplified Defunding Mechanism

[Stephen Michel]

On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Aaron Wolf  
wrote:



On 09/23/2015 03:34 PM, mray wrote:



 On 23.09.2015 23:43, Aaron Wolf wrote:

 Either you are all
 good or you lack funds and don't count. And if you have left-over
 inadequate funds, you can either adjust things to be good again, 
or you

 can zero-out. Fine. Sounds good to me!


 I like the simplicity about this approach as well.
 But it would be elegant to have only *one* kind of money transfer.
 If there is anything else besides pledging we only add complexity 
that

 needs explanation and justification.

 If there *has* to be some way to transfer the money outside of the
 pledging system it should not build up extra pressure on the user.
 Maybe a time frame of 2 years without logging in could result in
 donating the "rest" to snowdrift.coop then.

 The user should have total supervision and never be pressured.



Yes, the proposal as I understand it (and like it), is that the only
automatic zero-ing out of funds would be after a *substantial* time 
when

the account can be considered "inactive". Otherwise, the *manual*
zero-ing out is not available as a regular thing that we emphasize. It
would be something connected with manually *closing* your account.


Stephen also suggested essentially a "vacation" mode if you will, 
i.e. a
situation where someone zeros their account because they sort of want 
to

effectively close their account but still be able to come pick it up
some substantial time later. My view is: I don't think we need to 
build

that function right away. If we don't have that option, then it just
means some underfunded account sits inactive for a while until the
time-limit where we automatically zero it out.


Original proposal was to include manual zeroing, but I now agree it's 
not necessary for a MVP.



So, indeed the very simplest is just that underfunded situations means
pledges are already inactive entirely. We don't need to do automatic
zero-out right away, it can be delayed for a long time, and the other
aspect of zeroing out is just when someone closes their account 
entirely.


Now, let's clarify though. There's one main issue that the *current*
proposal (not Stephen's) addresses: if a project gets super popular
today and tomorrow is the payout, and so today my account becomes
underfunded because of this new popularity, and I only have one day to
adjust my pledge or update my funds if I want to stay a continuous
patron without any missed months. In that situation, counting the
zero-out as still being a patron gives me one more whole month to 
adjust
things so that I stay always a patron. If we *don't* count the 
zero-out
(or don't automatically do it at all), then it could mean I am marked 
in

the history as missing a month…

So, here's a middle-ground: we still do the zero-out *automatically*,
and we still mark the person a patron for the sake of showing the 
length

of time they've been a patron, but we don't count them for matching.
That seems too confusing to explain and track though.



Really, we just need to get the prototype fully functioning so we can
see what issues are most important via real experience.



Is it more important that all pledges count plainly, no confusion, no
underfunded-but-still-counts and no underfunded-pays-out-but-doesn't
count… or is it more important to assure that there's always a month
buffer for patrons to react and adjust before they stop counting.

Really, it's a matter of those two values and which is more important.


Agreed that a functioning prototype is our top priority, but disagreed 
that the two values are mutually exclusive.


Here're my suggestions for prototype and final product:

Prototype: Don't worry about the scenario you just described (rapid 
popularity growth => surprise underfunding) and just rely on the 
notification telling people their balance is low (before it actually 
becomes underfunded).


Final Product: Implement a "Freeze" date (say, 1 week from the end of 
the month) where the number of patrons becomes fixed until the end of 
the month. Any patrons who sign up after that date will not affect the 
donation rate until the following month.


~Stephen
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Proposal: Simplified Defunding Mechanism

[Aaron Wolf]

On 09/23/2015 03:34 PM, mray wrote:
> 
> 
> On 23.09.2015 23:43, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>> Either you are all
>> good or you lack funds and don't count. And if you have left-over
>> inadequate funds, you can either adjust things to be good again, or you
>> can zero-out. Fine. Sounds good to me!
> 
> I like the simplicity about this approach as well.
> But it would be elegant to have only *one* kind of money transfer.
> If there is anything else besides pledging we only add complexity that
> needs explanation and justification.
> 
> If there *has* to be some way to transfer the money outside of the
> pledging system it should not build up extra pressure on the user.
> Maybe a time frame of 2 years without logging in could result in
> donating the "rest" to snowdrift.coop then.
> 
> The user should have total supervision and never be pressured.
> 

Yes, the proposal as I understand it (and like it), is that the only
automatic zero-ing out of funds would be after a *substantial* time when
the account can be considered "inactive". Otherwise, the *manual*
zero-ing out is not available as a regular thing that we emphasize. It
would be something connected with manually *closing* your account.

Stephen also suggested essentially a "vacation" mode if you will, i.e. a
situation where someone zeros their account because they sort of want to
effectively close their account but still be able to come pick it up
some substantial time later. My view is: I don't think we need to build
that function right away. If we don't have that option, then it just
means some underfunded account sits inactive for a while until the
time-limit where we automatically zero it out.

So, indeed the very simplest is just that underfunded situations means
pledges are already inactive entirely. We don't need to do automatic
zero-out right away, it can be delayed for a long time, and the other
aspect of zeroing out is just when someone closes their account entirely.

Now, let's clarify though. There's one main issue that the *current*
proposal (not Stephen's) addresses: if a project gets super popular
today and tomorrow is the payout, and so today my account becomes
underfunded because of this new popularity, and I only have one day to
adjust my pledge or update my funds if I want to stay a continuous
patron without any missed months. In that situation, counting the
zero-out as still being a patron gives me one more whole month to adjust
things so that I stay always a patron. If we *don't* count the zero-out
(or don't automatically do it at all), then it could mean I am marked in
the history as missing a month…

So, here's a middle-ground: we still do the zero-out *automatically*,
and we still mark the person a patron for the sake of showing the length
of time they've been a patron, but we don't count them for matching.
That seems too confusing to explain and track though.

Really, we just need to get the prototype fully functioning so we can
see what issues are most important via real experience.

Is it more important that all pledges count plainly, no confusion, no
underfunded-but-still-counts and no underfunded-pays-out-but-doesn't
count… or is it more important to assure that there's always a month
buffer for patrons to react and adjust before they stop counting.

Really, it's a matter of those two values and which is more important.

-- 
Aaron Wolf Snowdrift.coop 
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Proposal: Simplified Defunding Mechanism

[mray]

On 23.09.2015 23:43, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> Either you are all
> good or you lack funds and don't count. And if you have left-over
> inadequate funds, you can either adjust things to be good again, or you
> can zero-out. Fine. Sounds good to me!

I like the simplicity about this approach as well.
But it would be elegant to have only *one* kind of money transfer.
If there is anything else besides pledging we only add complexity that
needs explanation and justification.

If there *has* to be some way to transfer the money outside of the
pledging system it should not build up extra pressure on the user.
Maybe a time frame of 2 years without logging in could result in
donating the "rest" to snowdrift.coop then.

The user should have total supervision and never be pressured.


-Robert



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Proposal: Simplified Defunding Mechanism

[Aaron Wolf]

On 09/23/2015 02:09 PM, Stephen Michel wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Aaron Wolf  wrote:
>> Hi Stephen, We're all on the same page already!
> 
> I actually had read the latest mechanism before making my proposal, and
> I think it's very good, which is why they're so similar :P
> 
> The substance of the difference is in how the final automated payout is
> handled. While the change is small, I think my proposal actually has
> significant benefits. I was really tired when I wrote this last night
> (note to self: write when you're awake) and I don't think I provided
> enough context for why this would be an improvement. So, I'll try to do
> that (and a little clarification) now.
> 
>> On 09/22/2015 11:23 PM, Stephen Michel wrote:
>>
>> _This email has two things:_ 1. Statement of our goals relating to
>> the defunding mechanism, so we have an agreed-upon base to have a
>> discussion from. 2. Proposal for simplified mechanism to
>> accomplish those goals. *1. Goals of a defunding mechanism:* -
>> Encourage users to deposit more funds in their account. - Provide
>> users with an easy way out (if I decide to leave the coop, it
>> sucks to have money stuck in my account) - Should be easily
>> understandable and intuitive. 
>>
>> The idea of withdrawing your funds when you leave is actually likely
>> to be something we cannot legally support. If we actually go with the
>> idea that the funds we hold are in fact still your money, we will
>> almost surely be considered an illegal money transfer service.
> 
> I didn't mean to propose we allow users to withdraw money. Rather, that
> we must have a way for users to distribute all remaining funds -- let's
> call that "zeroing your balance". The current mechanism does this
> automatically; mine does not, so I wanted to be explicit about it as a
> requirement.
> 
>> Thus, we have tentatively concluded that we only have two options: A.
>> All funds are donated immediately when deposited, pledges count as
>> voting for which projects get the funds. (This really won't discourage
>> deposits that much. If people support FLO in general, then the idea
>> that they can't get back their $10 is not a big deal, they can still
>> deposit incrementally). B. Charge in arrears (we don't hold funds at
>> all, we just charge people once donations reach a threshold that is
>> worth making a charge). This means if people leave, we either make
>> final uncomfortably low charges or lose some amount of cents that
>> would have been their final donations but they didn't add up to enough
>> to be worthwhile. Neither of these are awful, and they really are the
>> only options. Details:
>> https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/transactions
> 
> Missed that page. It includes a line about zeroing your balance:
> 
> "When closing accounts, patrons may either immediately split funds to
> select projects or just donate all to the Snowdrift project."
> 
> I have two additional suggestions.
> 
> *Important: *There should be a way to zero your balance without
> completely closing your account. If I'm going through a tough time
> financially and can't afford to donate at the moment, but intend to pick
> up where I left off (but, I don't want my deposited funds to "go to
> waste" in the meantime).
> 
> *Most Intuitive behavior (imo): *"select projects" should be the same
> projects & ratios as I was previously donating to. Perhaps when we
> launch there should be a way to pick how "your" money is distributed
> when you zero your account, but I think for the MVP it makes sense to
> only have one option (this one), which also allows for a
> close-to-one-click "zero my balance" button.
> 
>> *2. Proposed new mechanism* * * - An account can only have two
>> states: /Active/ and /Inactive./ - When an account's balance falls
>> below the amount required to pay all of their outstanding pledges
>> in full, it becomes /inactive./ - Pledges are now in terms of
>> /active/ patrons. (when an account becomes /inactive, /other
>> patrons no longer match for it.) - Owners of inactive accounts
>> have three options: 1. Lower their pledge amounts until balance >
>> payout 2. Add more money so that balance > payout 3. "One-time
>> donation:" Donate to each project, immediately, a percentage of
>> the money remaining in the account, so that when everything is
>> paid, the user has $0 left in the account. This does NOT make
>> their account become active or cause others to sponsor their
>> shares (their acct is still /inactive./ / / Now we only need 3
>> notification options: Account Balance is low (next payout will
>> cause account to become inactive) | Not Required Account becomes
>> inactive | Required Payout Occurs | Not Required Thoughts? 
>>
>> We're already on it! We already decided to drop the whole idea of
>> partially active accounts and "shares". Bryan has been working on
>> implementation of this si

Re: [Discuss] Proposal: Simplified Defunding Mechanism

[Stephen Michel]

On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Aaron Wolf  
wrote:

Hi Stephen,

We're all on the same page already!


I actually had read the latest mechanism before making my proposal, and 
I think it's very good, which is why they're so similar :P


The substance of the difference is in how the final automated payout is 
handled. While the change is small, I think my proposal actually has 
significant benefits. I was really tired when I wrote this last night 
(note to self: write when you're awake) and I don't think I provided 
enough context for why this would be an improvement. So, I'll try to do 
that (and a little clarification) now.



On 09/22/2015 11:23 PM, Stephen Michel wrote:

 _This email has two things:_

 1. Statement of our goals relating to the defunding mechanism, so we
 have an agreed-upon base to have a discussion from.
 2. Proposal for simplified mechanism to accomplish those goals.

 *1. Goals of a defunding mechanism:*

 - Encourage users to deposit more funds in their account.
 - Provide users with an easy way out (if I decide to leave the 
coop, it

 sucks to have money stuck in my account)
 - Should be easily understandable and intuitive.



The idea of withdrawing your funds when you leave is actually likely 
to
be something we cannot legally support. If we actually go with the 
idea

that the funds we hold are in fact still your money, we will almost
surely be considered an illegal money transfer service.


I didn't mean to propose we allow users to withdraw money. Rather, that 
we must have a way for users to distribute all remaining funds -- let's 
call that "zeroing your balance". The current mechanism does this 
automatically; mine does not, so I wanted to be explicit about it as a 
requirement.



Thus, we have tentatively concluded that we only have two options:

A. All funds are donated immediately when deposited, pledges count as
voting for which projects get the funds. (This really won't discourage
deposits that much. If people support FLO in general, then the idea 
that
they can't get back their $10 is not a big deal, they can still 
deposit

incrementally).

B. Charge in arrears (we don't hold funds at all, we just charge 
people

once donations reach a threshold that is worth making a charge). This
means if people leave, we either make final uncomfortably low charges 
or
lose some amount of cents that would have been their final donations 
but

they didn't add up to enough to be worthwhile.

Neither of these are awful, and they really are the only options.

Details: https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/transactions


Missed that page. It includes a line about zeroing your balance:

"When closing accounts, patrons may either immediately split funds to 
select projects or just donate all to the Snowdrift project."


I have two additional suggestions.

Important: There should be a way to zero your balance without 
completely closing your account. If I'm going through a tough time 
financially and can't afford to donate at the moment, but intend to 
pick up where I left off (but, I don't want my deposited funds to "go 
to waste" in the meantime).


Most Intuitive behavior (imo): "select projects" should be the same 
projects & ratios as I was previously donating to. Perhaps when we 
launch there should be a way to pick how "your" money is distributed 
when you zero your account, but I think for the MVP it makes sense to 
only have one option (this one), which also allows for a 
close-to-one-click "zero my balance" button.







 *2. Proposed new mechanism*
 *
 *
 - An account can only have two states: /Active/ and /Inactive./
 - When an account's balance falls below the amount required to pay 
all

 of their outstanding pledges in full, it becomes /inactive./
 - Pledges are now in terms of /active/ patrons. (when an account 
becomes

 /inactive, /other patrons no longer match for it.)
 - Owners of inactive accounts have three options:
   1. Lower their pledge amounts until balance > payout
   2. Add more money so that balance > payout
   3. "One-time donation:" Donate to each project, immediately, a
 percentage of the money remaining in the account, so that when
 everything is paid, the user has $0 left in the account. This does 
NOT
 make their account become active or cause others to sponsor their 
shares

 (their acct is still /inactive./
 /
 /
 Now we only need 3 notification options:
 Account Balance is low (next payout will cause account to become
 inactive) |  Not Required
 Account becomes inactive | Required
 Payout Occurs | Not Required

 Thoughts?



We're already on it! We already decided to drop the whole idea of
partially active accounts and "shares". Bryan has been working on
implementation of this simplified approach. My thought and proposal is
almost *exactly* yours with a couple minor differences.

When total funds < total pledges, my version is: if this situation 
gets
all the way to a pay time with no adjustments in funds or pledges, 
then

the system autom

Re: [Discuss] Proposal: Simplified Defunding Mechanism

[Aaron Wolf]

Hi Stephen,

We're all on the same page already!

On 09/22/2015 11:23 PM, Stephen Michel wrote:
> _This email has two things:_
> 
> 1. Statement of our goals relating to the defunding mechanism, so we
> have an agreed-upon base to have a discussion from.
> 2. Proposal for simplified mechanism to accomplish those goals.
> 
> *1. Goals of a defunding mechanism:*
> 
> - Encourage users to deposit more funds in their account.
> - Provide users with an easy way out (if I decide to leave the coop, it
> sucks to have money stuck in my account)
> - Should be easily understandable and intuitive.
> 

The idea of withdrawing your funds when you leave is actually likely to
be something we cannot legally support. If we actually go with the idea
that the funds we hold are in fact still your money, we will almost
surely be considered an illegal money transfer service.

Thus, we have tentatively concluded that we only have two options:

A. All funds are donated immediately when deposited, pledges count as
voting for which projects get the funds. (This really won't discourage
deposits that much. If people support FLO in general, then the idea that
they can't get back their $10 is not a big deal, they can still deposit
incrementally).

B. Charge in arrears (we don't hold funds at all, we just charge people
once donations reach a threshold that is worth making a charge). This
means if people leave, we either make final uncomfortably low charges or
lose some amount of cents that would have been their final donations but
they didn't add up to enough to be worthwhile.

Neither of these are awful, and they really are the only options.

Details: https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/transactions

> 
> *2. Proposed new mechanism*
> *
> *
> - An account can only have two states: /Active/ and /Inactive./
> - When an account's balance falls below the amount required to pay all
> of their outstanding pledges in full, it becomes /inactive./
> - Pledges are now in terms of /active/ patrons. (when an account becomes
> /inactive, /other patrons no longer match for it.)
> - Owners of inactive accounts have three options:
>   1. Lower their pledge amounts until balance > payout
>   2. Add more money so that balance > payout
>   3. "One-time donation:" Donate to each project, immediately, a
> percentage of the money remaining in the account, so that when
> everything is paid, the user has $0 left in the account. This does NOT
> make their account become active or cause others to sponsor their shares
> (their acct is still /inactive./
> /
> /
> Now we only need 3 notification options:
> Account Balance is low (next payout will cause account to become
> inactive) |  Not Required
> Account becomes inactive | Required
> Payout Occurs | Not Required
> 
> Thoughts?
> 

We're already on it! We already decided to drop the whole idea of
partially active accounts and "shares". Bryan has been working on
implementation of this simplified approach. My thought and proposal is
almost *exactly* yours with a couple minor differences.

When total funds < total pledges, my version is: if this situation gets
all the way to a pay time with no adjustments in funds or pledges, then
the system automatically does the split up among projects. And in my
view, we *still* count that patron for this last time, even though the
donations are less than their full pledge.

The notification details you mention are exactly the plan.

You can check with Bryan about the status of his updating all the code
to implement this new simplified approach.

Here's the discussion: (looks like we didn't think to make it a ticket
per se, although it was known to us that this is Bryan's priority work
to focus on implementing this)
https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/mechanism/c/3419

Cheers! Keep the ideas coming, you're clearly thinking well about the
issues we're facing and how to design this well.

Best,
Aaron

-- 
Aaron Wolf Snowdrift.coop 
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

[Discuss] Proposal: Simplified Defunding Mechanism

[Stephen Michel]

This email has two things:

1. Statement of our goals relating to the defunding mechanism, so we 
have an agreed-upon base to have a discussion from.

2. Proposal for simplified mechanism to accomplish those goals.

1. Goals of a defunding mechanism:

- Encourage users to deposit more funds in their account.
- Provide users with an easy way out (if I decide to leave the coop, it 
sucks to have money stuck in my account)

- Should be easily understandable and intuitive.

- Bonus: Easy to implement.

2. Proposed new mechanism

- An account can only have two states: Active and Inactive.
- When an account's balance falls below the amount required to pay all 
of their outstanding pledges in full, it becomes inactive.
- Pledges are now in terms of active patrons. (when an account becomes 
inactive, other patrons no longer match for it.)

- Owners of inactive accounts have three options:
 1. Lower their pledge amounts until balance > payout
 2. Add more money so that balance > payout
 3. "One-time donation:" Donate to each project, immediately, a 
percentage of the money remaining in the account, so that when 
everything is paid, the user has $0 left in the account. This does NOT 
make their account become active or cause others to sponsor their 
shares (their acct is still inactive.


Now we only need 3 notification options:
Account Balance is low (next payout will cause account to become 
inactive) |  Not Required

Account becomes inactive | Required
Payout Occurs | Not Required

Thoughts?

~Stephen
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss