Idea: Projects have multiple goals

Projects can have multiple goals defined at the same time. The next bigger goal is the current goal that is used to calculate funded%.

This has 2 advantages:

  1. additional higher goals work as stretch goals. a patron sees the vision of the project
  2. previoulsy reached goals work as save points. when the projects funding is stagnating and loosing patrons, funded% don’t drop down to 0

So a project is encouraged to have many goals. That makes the funding transparent to the patrons.


A project has these goals defined:

  • 100$ cover running expenses
  • 700$ (+600$) hire one maintainer half-time
  • 1300$ (+600$) hire two maintainers half time
  • 1900$ (+600$) hire one full-time maintainer, hire one half-time maintainer
  • 2500$ (+600$) hire two full-time maintainers
  • 3100$ (+600$) hire an additional half-time developer
  • 3700$ (+600$) hire an additional half-time developer
  • 4300$ (+600$) hire an additional half-time developer
  • 5500$ (+1200$) hire an additional full-time developer

The patrons pledge to contribute 2491$ max together (number from

So 2500$ is the next goal.

Applying what we have aligned on in Options for next step for new approach to crowdmatching - #10 by wolftune

each month’s donations will be proportional to the percentage of the goal the crowd has reached

2491 of 2500 is 99,64%, so the project gets 99,64% of 2491, which is 2482$

Positiv change

Now see what happens in the positive case that more patrons contribute (or existing contribute more). 100$ more, so 2591$. The next goal is 3100$.

2591 of 3100 is 83,58%, so the project gets 83,58% of 2591, which is 2165$

This means, the project get’s less than before they reached the goal! That’s not good.

Negative change

The project loses patrons and the remaining pledge is just 2000$ (slightly over the previous goal).

2000 of 2500 is 80%, so the project get’s 80% of 2000, which is 1600$

When the project drops below the previous goal, so pledge is 1800:

1800 of 1900 is 94,74%, so the project get’s 94,74% of 1800, which is 1705$

That is more than before! Also not good.

So a good time to activate a higher goal (or change the goal in the case of having just one) might be when the project would actually get more money. That seems never to be the case, because 100% of the pledge is the best you can get. So a projects stays on the lowest goal, but have eliminated the crowdmatching effect. Visitors have not more incentive as on patreon.

source: can’t upload .gnumeric file, only microsoft office files :grimacing:

So in the end, the project invests in more patrons by giving up on %. It seems really a bet as in the stock market.

The question is, how much % gives you the most new patrons. And them you would want to stay on that. Adjust the goal every time a new patron joins.

In the end, this idea topic is again about the dynamics of changing the goal.

This is a similar idea to Funding milestones

They don’t, though! If you can automatically drop below it, I wouldn’t call that a save point. But what if you couldn’t drop below it? That seems to me to be the obvious fix for the “bad” scenarios you pointed out.

Use real save points… Instead of the funding of the next goal being proportional to the crowd’s overall pledges, make it proportional to the new gap between the old goal and the new goal.

Old goal: $2500
New goal: $3100
Difference: $600

So, give the project 100% of the goal they already surpassed ($2500), plus the proportional amount (as usual) of the progress to the next goal.

Current pledges: $2591
Amount past old goal: $91
Amount left to go: $509

So we’re 91/600 or about 15% there. Use this proportion for crowdmatching and add it to the already locked-in $2500.

2 Appreciations

I haven’t spent enough time thinking through this idea to say anything with certainty[1], but it looks like my proposal here might just be a better version of it?

Are the similar enough that you could adjust your spreadsheet to that formula?

  1. and I probably won't for a while, sorry ↩︎

1 Appreciation