Re: [Snowdrift-discuss] How the limit works

[Bryan Richter]

On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 09:56:30AM -0600, Michael Siepmann wrote:
> On 08/09/2016 08:09 AM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> 
> > On 08/09/2016 06:31 AM, Stephen Michel wrote:
> >> On August 9, 2016 8:59:16 AM EDT, Bryan Richter wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> I suggest we specify it as a maximum fee percentage, however, to
> >>> help adapt to future fee differences. That being the case, I
> >>> propose we choose 15% as the maximum fee percentage (plus or
> >>> minus some tenths of a percent).
> >> A % fee max, rounded to the nearest pretty dollar amount, seems
> >> like the way to go to me. 15% / $2 seems reasonable to me.
> >>
> > I agree that 15% fee is the maximum fee, seems sensible enough,
> > and that makes it processor-neutral. I don't agree with Stephen's
> > idea of rounding to nearest dollar, that's far too low resolution.
> > I think just rounding to nearest cent is fine.
> >
> 15% seems high to me.

There are three things being discussed here, so I want to provide
space to think about them separately.

First, which I think we all agree about: the fee percentage should be
calculated against the total charge, and not against the crowdmatch
subtotal. (Michael, I provided both ratios for comparison, but
"fee/total" was the one I was referring to with my proposed 15%. Sorry
I didn't make that clear.)

Second, what should that percentage be? I have no strong opinion. We
have +3 for 15% and +1 for 10%, but 15% is benefiting from the
primacy principle. Are there any other votes, or changes of heart?

Finally, how is the minimum sensible pledge displayed: as a dollar
amount, or as a ratio? I think it's clear that the amount should be
*calculated* as a ratio, but I'm not certain that *displaying* it as a
ratio is best. But I don't actually know. Any opinions here?

I'm personally partial to dollar amounts because it provides an
(algorithmic) level of indirection. If we say we charge <=10%, and
then Stripe changes its fees faster than we can adapt, we'd be lying.
But if we say, "We won't charge you for amounts less than 2 bucks",
that's totally within our control. We would simply use the ratio as a
rough guide for future corrections.


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

Re: [Snowdrift-discuss] How the limit works

[Michael Siepmann]

On 08/09/2016 08:09 AM, Aaron Wolf wrote:

> On 08/09/2016 06:31 AM, Stephen Michel wrote:
>> On August 9, 2016 8:59:16 AM EDT, Bryan Richter  wrote:
>>> 
>>> I suggest we specify it as a maximum fee percentage, however, to help
>>> adapt to future fee differences. That being the case, I propose we
>>> choose 15% as the maximum fee percentage (plus or minus some tenths of
>>> a percent).
>> A % fee max, rounded to the nearest pretty dollar amount, seems like the way 
>> to go to me. 15% / $2 seems reasonable to me.
>>
> I agree that 15% fee is the maximum fee, seems sensible enough, and that
> makes it processor-neutral. I don't agree with Stephen's idea of
> rounding to nearest dollar, that's far too low resolution. I think just
> rounding to nearest cent is fine.
>
15% seems high to me.  Thinking as a patron, I'd be more comfortable if
the proportion of my money going to the payment processor stayed in
single digits.

I agree we don't need to round it but the messaging on my history mockup
will need to change to refer to percentage rather than amount, since it
would seem odd to say "Below $3.66 minimum..." etc.  There's also a
question of whether the percentage should be of the total crowdmatch, as
in Bryan's table, or the total charge.  I think percentage of total
charge is simpler for the user to understand, i.e. of the amount charged
to my payment method, the percentage going to the payment processor will
always be under 10%, or in other words the amount going to projects will
always be over 90%.  In my mockup, the current note explaining a
carryover to the next month to avoid excessive payment processor fees is:

Carried over to next month  ($0.72)  Below $2 minimum charge
via Stripe

If we do a threshold based on percentage of total charge, the note could
instead be:

Carried over to next month  ($0.72)  Stripe fee would exceed
10% of charge

In the case of Stripe's 2.9% + 30c charge, this would make the minimum
charge $3.66, which seems reasonable to me, combined with the $5 minimum
limit that Aaron proposed.


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

Re: [Snowdrift-discuss] How the limit works

[Aaron Wolf]

On 08/09/2016 06:31 AM, Stephen Michel wrote:
> 
> 
> On August 9, 2016 8:59:16 AM EDT, Bryan Richter  wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 03:55:42PM -0700, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>>> On 08/03/2016 03:48 PM, Stephen Michel wrote:
 On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 6:46 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> On 08/03/2016 03:29 PM, Stephen Michel wrote:
>>  What happens if someone wants to set their limit lower than the
>>  minimum credit card charge?
>>
> We would not allow such a low limit. The range of allowable
> limits will start high enough minimum to be sensible.

 What is the current thinking on the minimum value? I've seen $2
 and $5 thrown around.

>>>
>>> There's no more clarity than that. I guess I'll go ahead and propose
>>> we start with $5 as minimum budget.
>>
>> Related question:
>>
>> What is the minimum sensible charge?
>>
>> Stripe's front page advertises a fee of 2.9% + 30¢.
>>
>> CrowdmatchFeeTotal  Fee/Total   Fee/Crowdmatch
>> ---
>> $0.10 30¢   $0.40  75.18%  302.90%
>>  0.20 31 0.51  60.46   152.90
>>  0.30 31 0.61  50.71   102.90
>>  0.50 31 0.81  38.6162.90
>>  0.80 32 1.12  28.7740.40
>>  1.30 34 1.64  20.6225.98
>>  2.00 36 2.36  15.1817.90
>>  2.10 36 2.46  14.6717.19
>>  3.40 40 3.80  10.4911.72
>>  5.50 46 5.96   7.71 8.35
>>
>> Based on that table, I think $2.00 is the minimum sensible charge.
>>
>> I suggest we specify it as a maximum fee percentage, however, to help
>> adapt to future fee differences. That being the case, I propose we
>> choose 15% as the maximum fee percentage (plus or minus some tenths of
>> a percent).
> 
> A % fee max, rounded to the nearest pretty dollar amount, seems like the way 
> to go to me. 15% / $2 seems reasonable to me.
> 

I agree that 15% fee is the maximum fee, seems sensible enough, and that
makes it processor-neutral. I don't agree with Stephen's idea of
rounding to nearest dollar, that's far too low resolution. I think just
rounding to nearest cent is fine.



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

Re: [Snowdrift-discuss] How the limit works

[Bryan Richter]

On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 03:55:42PM -0700, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> On 08/03/2016 03:48 PM, Stephen Michel wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 6:46 PM, Aaron Wolf  wrote:
> >> On 08/03/2016 03:29 PM, Stephen Michel wrote:
> >>>  Clean slate because context is getting absurd and this is important
> >>>  regardless of rollover mechanism.
> >>>
> >>>  What happens if someone wants to set their limit lower than the minimum
> >>>  credit card charge?
> >>>
> >>
> >> We would not allow such a low limit. The range of allowable limits will
> >> start high enough minimum to be sensible.
> > 
> > What is the current thinking on the minimum value? I've seen $2 and $5
> > thrown around.
> > 
> 
> There's no more clarity than that. I guess I'll go ahead and propose
> we start with $5 as minimum budget.
> 

I've tracked this decision (and others) in a new issue:

https://tree.taiga.io/project/snowdrift/issue/456


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