W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webpayments@w3.org > March 2012

Re: Crowdfunding: Assurance variations

From: David Nicol <davidnicol@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 16:32:52 -0500
Message-ID: <CAFwScO8FB63Vreox5ma=-2rqgew2c+0_OPD8Np-Ek6fwuVVWwA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andrew Durham <yodrew@gmail.com>
Cc: Fabio Barone <holon.earth@gmail.com>, public-webpayments@w3.org
enabling supporters of a proposal to help fund bonuses in case of
> failure.


I don't get how funding bonuses in case of failure -- betting against the
project -- helps the project. Is it by slightly lowering the risk to
participants?

with accurate time value of money calculations, in case of failure the
people who participated in a failed drive could get back their pledge plus
interest, and in case of success the project would get the interest too.

To have a bonus pool, where the interest on funds pledged to successful
projects goes, instead of to the projects (or to operations of the
platform, which seems like the natural place for it to go), instead of one
of those places, the pool would increase and would then sweeten the
interest on contributions to failed projects -- that would be
counterproductive too, as it would provide an incentive to create crappy
projects and donate to them for the higher interest when they fail.

If I'm missing something, please try to explain again how having a higher
bonus in case the target is missed is supposed to help the target get hit?
Received on Wednesday, 14 March 2012 21:33:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:07:20 UTC