Re: [Discuss] [Funding Mechanism] How to accommodate lower and higher pledge levels

[Stephen Michel]

I may agree with you; I haven't quite decided yet. I'm going to 
continue to argue until I'm convinced one way or the other.


On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 6:36 AM, mray  wrote:



On 20.10.2015 19:09, Stephen Michel wrote:

 !IMPORTANT!
 First: I propose we set a Design Freeze Deadline of next MONDAY, 
OCT 26

 for the mechanism. After that date, the design shall be locked in.

 ---

 Second: I'm going to re-pitch my proposal:

 I hold these to be self-evident. If you agree with me, I don't see 
what
 your objection might be to this proposal. If you disagree, well, 
this

 list makes it easy to say exactly where you disagree.

 1. People are not confused by different donation levels. They may 
even

 expect them. Ex:

 https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/demanding
 https://elementary.io/


This is comparing apples with oranges.
Snowdrift changes the donation level with each new donor already.


Hmm. In one sense you're completely right. Snowdrift is a unique 
mechanism and therefore need not necessarily mimic existing systems. So 
I agree that this should not be used as a *justification* to add 
different levels. ie, let's scrap the part about people's expectations 
-- we don't need to follow them.


That doesn't change what people's experiences have been, so I think the 
point stands. Particularly, I included this point to preempt any cries 
of "but different donation levels increases complexity too much," and I 
believe these examples serve as an effective counterargument to that.




 2. Some people would like to donate more.



I agree, but then again 0.1¢ isn't really much when there are 93 
donors.



 3. "Donate X per patron" is not a hard concept to understand.


I agree.



 4. We do not want to unnecessarily handicap ourselves in getting 
off the

 ground (ie, by denying generous patrons the ability to donate more).



I disagree.
We absolutely want to handicap ourselves "in a way":
Picture a new project with about 100 donors.
The average match factor is under 1¢.
Most donors *DO* want to pay more - right?
We effectively deny "generous" patrons to pay *WAY* more than they do 
in
that case. It just begs the question of what is "generous" and that 
hard

to pin down.
Where would you draw the line?


You can make the same argument in the other direction. When a project 
has millions of donors, we deny poor potential patrons a way to 
contribute meaningfully. However, some people may only be interested in 
donating a fraction of a cent, to game the system. Where do we draw the 
line? Right now it's at $1/1kP. As per point 5, ideally we'd prefer for 
the market to decide on a minimum donation. However, I cannot think of 
an effective way to do this, so we accept a certain level of 
intervention. We could implement a safeguard of, "if any user wishes to 
donate at a lower-than-minimum rate, so long as their absolute donation 
remains above $X per month, they shall retain patron status. However, 
there's no effective parallel on the upper end.


I think perhaps what you're getting at is another goal:

4b. We do not want to handicap a sustainable funding model (ie, by 
implementing reverse network effects), just to get ourselves of the 
ground.


Particularly, the danger is people who want to increase their donation 
rate to help projects get funding more quickly, but then decrease their 
donation later when it becomes too much. This is misleading to new 
users and reduces the incentive for them to join. "If you join, 
existing users will pay X more. Wait, they reduced their donations 
because you joined." However, I don't think there's anything 
problematic about this scenario:


There are 100 donors. Most want to pay more, so many significantly 
increase their donation level. More people join and now there are 1000 
users. The donors who increased their levels are paying a lot, but they 
are OK with this and don't change their donation levels.


Perhaps the solution here is to implement a similar artificial upper 
bound on the donation rate. Here's a new iteration:


https://img.bi/#/DS4BLr3!bShevCuB79uyws4osV1LMwyoWspeNsdA5c3G_QLA

Note for bystanders: it doesn't matter how many options we end up 
offering or what they are, we're discussing the concept here. If we 
took this route I'd probably reduce to 3 options: min, max, average. 
Maybe with a "custom" option that's heavily de-emphasized.


 4a. We do not want to use sleazy tactics to get people to donate 
more.


I agree.



 5. All things equal, we'd prefer to allow the mechanism to function
 naturally rather than with our intervention.



I agree.




 Therefore, I propose the following:

 Show 4 donation levels.
 1. Minimum. Currently $1 per 1000 users.
 2. Average. This shall be the default / recommended. It is 
completely
 clear how we came to it, is not artificially manipulated (except 
for the
 first user) and provides a higher-than-minimum donation level to 
help

 projects get off the ground.
 3. Double the average. 

Re: [Discuss] [Funding Mechanism] How to accommodate lower and higher pledge levels

[Stephen Michel]

!IMPORTANT!
First: I propose we set a Design Freeze Deadline of next MONDAY, OCT 26 
for the mechanism. After that date, the design shall be locked in.


---

Second: I'm going to re-pitch my proposal:

I hold these to be self-evident. If you agree with me, I don't see what 
your objection might be to this proposal. If you disagree, well, this 
list makes it easy to say exactly where you disagree.


1. People are not confused by different donation levels. They may even 
expect them. Ex:


https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/demanding
https://elementary.io/

2. Some people would like to donate more.

3. "Donate X per patron" is not a hard concept to understand.

4. We do not want to unnecessarily handicap ourselves in getting off 
the ground (ie, by denying generous patrons the ability to donate more).


4a. We do not want to use sleazy tactics to get people to donate more.

5. All things equal, we'd prefer to allow the mechanism to function 
naturally rather than with our intervention.




Therefore, I propose the following:

Show 4 donation levels.
1. Minimum. Currently $1 per 1000 users.
2. Average. This shall be the default / recommended. It is completely 
clear how we came to it, is not artificially manipulated (except for 
the first user) and provides a higher-than-minimum donation level to 
help projects get off the ground.
3. Double the average. Provides an option for generous donors (rather 
than forcing them to decide on a value themselves).
4. User-entered. Must be minimum or higher (duh). Provides an option 
for *extra* generous donors, or those who wish to donate less but not 
the minimum.


Here's a whiteboard sketch I drew of how this might look. I *really* 
don't think this is unduly complicated.


https://img.bi/#/818IWCe!tXPyBZZ4M1n2oqQeZNDSgAtSgOzD44fyGhFBFW6u

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

Re: [Discuss] [Funding Mechanism] How to accommodate lower and higher pledge levels

[Aaron Wolf]

On 10/19/2015 08:20 AM, Stephen Michel wrote:
> In short, I don't believe we actually need any change to the mechanism;
> we just need to lower the minimum and encourage donation at
> above-minimum levels.
> 
> We should do this by keeping in mind that *the average user will tend to
> stick with the defaults.* Therefore, if we set the recommended pledge
> level above the minimum, so long as that pledge level is reasonable (ie,
> easily within the user's budget), they will stick with that donation
> level. I propose the following. Note: numbers are rather arbitrary, I
> just wanted to give a concrete example/idea.
> 
> let n refer to the number of users.
> 
> - Lower the minimum contribution to $1 per 5000 users.

There's no basis for you to speculate that this lower minimum makes any
sense. These types of changes are only sensible once we can operate and
see how the numbers play out. Our current baseline is as good an
appropriate guess and easier to calculate and explain.

I think you need to read https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/limits


> - For small n (< 100), the recommended contribution is $1 per 1000 users.
> - For n <= 100, the recommended contribution is the average of other
> users' contribution.

We don't want to recommend people counteracting the network effect. That
would mean a message to others that says "if you join, others will
adjust their pledge downward and actually *not* match you really".

>   - This is presented to the user as "match other users 1:1"
>   - The user has an option to match at a different rate, but it's not
> highlighted visually.
> - If a user does opt to change their rate, the following message is
> displayed:
>   - "This will [increase/decrease] the recommended donation[!/.]"
> 
> Hopefully this allows for all of the following:
> - A social incentive to donate more (increase the recommended donation).
> - A way to donate less with a reasonable social "penalty."
>   - if there's no "penalty," people may try to calculate the "best deal"
> of matching, ie, always donate the minimum.
>   - if there's too much "penalty," it may dissuade people who actually
> can't afford it from donating.
> - An elegant way to handle higher and lower contribution levels (ie,
> adds little complexity).
> - An intuitive way to present higher and lower donation levels to users.
> 
> Thoughts?

All these goals are captured in our initial formula:
https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/formula
It has all the right properties to encourage larger pledges, discourage
reducing your pledge, *allow* reducing your pledge… and we even
originally started with a minimum that was a tenth the size of the
current proposed minimum. So your thinking is exactly where we started
with all this.

The problem is that all this just leads to too much complexity, too much
to explain, too many qualifications over the plain pledge concept, and
so we really need to focus on launching without all this for now. The
explanation of it all is just too cumbersome. The principles would be
ideal to have, but we can't make it work practically.

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

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

Re: [Discuss] [Funding Mechanism] How to accommodate lower and higher pledge levels

[Stephen Michel]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Aaron Wolf  
wrote:



On 10/19/2015 08:20 AM, Stephen Michel wrote:
 In short, I don't believe we actually need any change to the 
mechanism;

 we just need to lower the minimum and encourage donation at
 above-minimum levels.

 We should do this by keeping in mind that *the average user will 
tend to
 stick with the defaults.* Therefore, if we set the recommended 
pledge
 level above the minimum, so long as that pledge level is reasonable 
(ie,

 easily within the user's budget), they will stick with that donation
 level. I propose the following. Note: numbers are rather arbitrary, 
I

 just wanted to give a concrete example/idea.

 let n refer to the number of users.

 - Lower the minimum contribution to $1 per 5000 users.


There's no basis for you to speculate that this lower minimum makes 
any
sense. These types of changes are only sensible once we can operate 
and

see how the numbers play out. Our current baseline is as good an
appropriate guess and easier to calculate and explain.

I think you need to read 
https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/limits


I have read this.

 - For small n (< 100), the recommended contribution is $1 per 1000 
users.

 - For n <= 100, the recommended contribution is the average of other
 users' contribution.


We don't want to recommend people counteracting the network effect. 
That

would mean a message to others that says "if you join, others will
adjust their pledge downward and actually *not* match you really".


There's very probably some phrasing improvements. However:

1. When you join, others will match you at the level they have 
selected, no matter what. The messaging should be:

 - "If you join, current patrons will donate $X more."
   - This is a simple concept which everyone gets.
 - "Future patrons will match you at a level they choose. We'll 
recommend they match you 1:1, so if you donate more/less, we'll 
recommend they match YOU more/less respectively.
   - This is slightly more complicated. Probably, this puts the idea 
outside the scope of our MVP. This is fine.



   - This is presented to the user as "match other users 1:1"
   - The user has an option to match at a different rate, but it's 
not

 highlighted visually.
 - If a user does opt to change their rate, the following 
message is

 displayed:
   - "This will [increase/decrease] the recommended 
donation[!/.]"


 Hopefully this allows for all of the following:
 - A social incentive to donate more (increase the recommended 
donation).

 - A way to donate less with a reasonable social "penalty."
   - if there's no "penalty," people may try to calculate the "best 
deal"

 of matching, ie, always donate the minimum.
   - if there's too much "penalty," it may dissuade people who 
actually

 can't afford it from donating.
 - An elegant way to handle higher and lower contribution levels (ie,
 adds little complexity).
 - An intuitive way to present higher and lower donation levels to 
users.


 Thoughts?


All these goals are captured in our initial formula:
https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/formula
It has all the right properties to encourage larger pledges, 
discourage

reducing your pledge, *allow* reducing your pledge… and we even
originally started with a minimum that was a tenth the size of the
current proposed minimum. So your thinking is exactly where we started
with all this.

The problem is that all this just leads to too much complexity, too 
much

to explain, too many qualifications over the plain pledge concept, and
so we really need to focus on launching without all this for now. The
explanation of it all is just too cumbersome. The principles would be
ideal to have, but we can't make it work practically.


This is where I want to stress the difference here: ***this is NOT 
actually a change of formula!*** For any individual patron the formula 
is still, "I'm pledging to donate X per patron."


It's a change in the level of donation that we recommend. Actually, how 
we decide on that level of recommendation can be *completely* hidden 
from the user.


~~Most~~ All of this is simply a change in how we present information 
to the user.


The point, is, I believe this, IFF we do the messaging right, is a way 
to get back some of the benefits of the original pledge mechanism, 
without a substantial increase to the complexity of the system, 
particularly from the user's point of view.


Most users will only ever see a button like:

/-\
|**PLEDGE**  |
| (recommended donation)" |
\-/
   (change donation level)

~Stephen



 ~Stephen


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



--
Aaron Wolf Snowdrift.coop 
___
Discuss mailing list

Re: [Discuss] [Funding Mechanism] How to accommodate lower and higher pledge levels

[mray]

On 19.10.2015 17:47, Stephen Michel wrote:
> 
> 
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Aaron Wolf  wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/19/2015 08:20 AM, Stephen Michel wrote:
>>>  In short, I don't believe we actually need any change to the mechanism;
>>>  we just need to lower the minimum and encourage donation at
>>>  above-minimum levels.
>>>
>>>  We should do this by keeping in mind that *the average user will
>>> tend to
>>>  stick with the defaults.* Therefore, if we set the recommended pledge
>>>  level above the minimum, so long as that pledge level is reasonable
>>> (ie,
>>>  easily within the user's budget), they will stick with that donation
>>>  level. I propose the following. Note: numbers are rather arbitrary, I
>>>  just wanted to give a concrete example/idea.
>>>
>>>  let n refer to the number of users.
>>>
>>>  - Lower the minimum contribution to $1 per 5000 users.
>>
>> There's no basis for you to speculate that this lower minimum makes any
>> sense. These types of changes are only sensible once we can operate and
>> see how the numbers play out. Our current baseline is as good an
>> appropriate guess and easier to calculate and explain.
>>
>> I think you need to read https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/limits
> 
> I have read this.
> 
>>>  - For small n (< 100), the recommended contribution is $1 per 1000
>>> users.
>>>  - For n <= 100, the recommended contribution is the average of other
>>>  users' contribution.
>>
>> We don't want to recommend people counteracting the network effect. That
>> would mean a message to others that says "if you join, others will
>> adjust their pledge downward and actually *not* match you really".
> 
> There's very probably some phrasing improvements. However:
> 
> 1. When you join, others will match you at the level they have selected,
> no matter what. The messaging should be:
>  - "If you join, current patrons will donate $X more."
>- This is a simple concept which everyone gets.
>  - "Future patrons will match you at a level they choose. We'll
> recommend they match you 1:1, so if you donate more/less, we'll
> recommend they match YOU more/less respectively.
>- This is slightly more complicated. Probably, this puts the idea
> outside the scope of our MVP. This is fine.
> 
>>>- This is presented to the user as "match other users 1:1"
>>>- The user has an option to match at a different rate, but it's not
>>>  highlighted visually.
>>>  - If a user does opt to change their rate, the following message is
>>>  displayed:
>>>- "This will [increase/decrease] the recommended donation[!/.]"
>>>
>>>  Hopefully this allows for all of the following:
>>>  - A social incentive to donate more (increase the recommended
>>> donation).
>>>  - A way to donate less with a reasonable social "penalty."
>>>- if there's no "penalty," people may try to calculate the "best
>>> deal"
>>>  of matching, ie, always donate the minimum.
>>>- if there's too much "penalty," it may dissuade people who actually
>>>  can't afford it from donating.
>>>  - An elegant way to handle higher and lower contribution levels (ie,
>>>  adds little complexity).
>>>  - An intuitive way to present higher and lower donation levels to
>>> users.
>>>
>>>  Thoughts?
>>
>> All these goals are captured in our initial formula:
>> https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/formula
>> It has all the right properties to encourage larger pledges, discourage
>> reducing your pledge, *allow* reducing your pledge… and we even
>> originally started with a minimum that was a tenth the size of the
>> current proposed minimum. So your thinking is exactly where we started
>> with all this.
>>
>> The problem is that all this just leads to too much complexity, too much
>> to explain, too many qualifications over the plain pledge concept, and
>> so we really need to focus on launching without all this for now. The
>> explanation of it all is just too cumbersome. The principles would be
>> ideal to have, but we can't make it work practically.
> 
> This is where I want to stress the difference here: ***this is NOT
> actually a change of formula!*** For any individual patron the formula
> is still, "I'm pledging to donate X per patron."
> 
> It's a change in the level of donation that we recommend. Actually, how
> we decide on that level of recommendation can be *completely* hidden
> from the user.
> 
> ~~Most~~ All of this is simply a change in how we present information to
> the user.
> 
> The point, is, I believe this, IFF we do the messaging right, is a way
> to get back some of the benefits of the original pledge mechanism,
> without a substantial increase to the complexity of the system,
> particularly from the user's point of view.
> 
> Most users will only ever see a button like:
> 
> /-\
> |**PLEDGE**  |
> | (recommended donation)" |
> \-/
>(change donation level)
> 
>