On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:44:34AM -0700, Jonathan Roberts wrote: > These things may have been discussed already, but these are > initial thoughts from friends looking at the system; ie > theoretical potential patrons. > > 1)It will make the average person nervous to not see a very clear > representation of what they are going to be paying total. This > relates to the other discussion we were having; regardless of > whether or not it gives people the impression that this is a > "great bargain" or whatever, people need to see a very clear > presentation of what they will be called on to pay or they will > be very nervous about signing on at all.
I don't believe we have an entirely adequate solution to assuage this concern. The fundamental difficulty is that in order to have a mutually-matching funding system, it appears that a patron must "withhold" funds to use as incentive for other patrons. At best, they have to not know what they will actually contribute one month from now. This is actually more than just a psychological barrier. This will actually prevent institutional sponsors from signing up. I spoke with... someone... shoot! I forget who now, but it was at the Community Leadership Summit. He said that donations made by large organizations need to have dollar amounts known well in advance for accounting and bookkeeping. I think this is a substantial issue. > 2)As more people sign on to the system, shouldn't the average > pledge rate go down? If you originally sign on at $1 per 5000 > people, but then 60000 sign on, you don't each need to be paying > $12- each person can be paying much less than the original $1 per > 5000, and the collective result will still be enormous. As others have said, this would be a *great* problem to have. That said, it is still obviously a psychological barrier that comes up way at the beginning. We can't just dust it off and say "Oh that's not a problem": it may not be, but the *perception* that it is is a problem in itself. This barrier may drop with real numbers and real activity. I could see charts showing the last three months of payouts for a project showing potential signups what they're probably getting into. For just this reason, it may be good to focus on supporting *existing, established* projects at release. It may be good to come up with other mitigating solutions, as well. > 3)We should have an option for automatic withdrawal directly from > a bank account. The "snowdrift account" is a great buffer to help > some people feel comfortable, but other people are going to say > "I don't want to have to keep thinking about depositing funds or > be reminded of it; I believe in this enough to just commit to it > being directly withdrawn. This may, in fact, be the only method used. The design is in flux, and what we are legally capable of doing is not entirely clear yet. :)
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss
