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

Re: Crowdfunding: Assurance variations

From: David Nicol <davidnicol@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 14:21:53 -0500
Message-ID: <CAFwScO_O06hukw1f6JBCm57bD-OCOQP5oSrwnLjj90bJk4Durg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andrew Durham <yodrew@gmail.com>
Cc: Fabio Barone <holon.earth@gmail.com>, public-webpayments@w3.org
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 4:10 AM, Andrew Durham <yodrew@gmail.com> wrote:

> Because:
> >> The contributions and the pot both count toward the goal.
>
> Despite having written this, I think my description is not clear
> because, in other places, it seems to separate the pot from the
> contributions. Thanks for bringing out this confusion with your
> question.
>
> Now for your minor points:
> The only people who are "betting against the project" are contributors
> who make a claim on the pot with a positive bonus rate rather than
> contribute to the pot with a negative rate. People bet different ways,
> but they all contribute. So the only people truly betting against the
> project are non-participants.
>
> Collecting interest is possible but not necessary.
>

so the detroit egg co-op wants to raise 10K USD for legal filings to get
itself up and going, and lists itself with
crowdfundingplus.yodrew.example.net.

A donor has 100 USD of discretionary income that they might donate towards
a future with convenient and fresher organic eggs.

Currently they can donate 100 and if there aren't another hundred like them
too, they will get it back.

You want them to split that 100 into 90 they will get back in case of
failure and 10 that will go to others else in case of failure.

This seems like a bad idea because

   1. it's more complicated
   2. it focuses on failure


-- 
maybe one can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason
themselves into, but there's always pointing and laughing
Received on Thursday, 15 March 2012 19:22:21 UTC

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