tl;dr: good work, good progress, notes: we need to drop the extra-cent-worth-$200 bit, maybe → instead of =; baton hand off is great, but have 2 equal bars at that point, and text shouldn’t emphasize “embryonic” or similar.
Per discussion earlier with @mray, he vetos the framing of “each extra you give is worth…” as too potentially confusing. It’s arguably something of a deepity — it’s trivially true or profoundly false.
So, the math is right that you can know that when you see your donation go up by 1¢ and there’s ~10,000 patrons, they all also get the same increase, giving the $200 increase for the project. But that’s not really much more remarkable than just saying in general, “with 10,000 patrons, that many others are increasing their donations with you” which is just another framing of the basic crowdmatching concept.
The false impression is one where someone imagines that they actually have a choice of whether to give their extra 1¢ or not, and thinking that if they choose to, then it gets the project an extra $200. Of course, we aren’t offering everyone a choice about every ¢, and if we did, then it would disconnect the the 1¢ and the $200. We don’t want to open up potential misunderstandings around this.
So, that’s just a long explanation about why we won’t use the matching-of-each-cent framing.
I think the earlier stuff in the images is okay but not with the = sign. There is something about just showing the concrete math. You (and everyone else) at pledge value X means Y total for the project. That’s nice to show. And the specific numbers are helpful.
Making progress, but there’s issues here. We aren’t emphasizing embryonic projects at all, so we don’t want people to focus on the idea that this is about early startups. We also don’t want people to think that they should pass on the baton.
We need to emphasize that the limit is a failsafe that we don’t intend for them to hit per se. We hope they will raise the limit as they gain confidence in the value of crowdmatching.
Like: “Hmm, I dunno, but I’ll try it, and $10 limit seems reasonable for now… oh, now that I’m putting in $8 and see the result and success of crowdmatching, this is really great, I’m gonna raise my limit to $25…”
And then we could say, “what if you really can’t afford to chip in any more?” Then we have the hand-off-the-baton idea (which is a nice image!) and we can emphasize continuing to support other projects (not that they are necessarily young seedlings, it might just be a matter of supporting a lower number of total projects).
One picky detail: the baton is handed off where the level stays flat. So, a patron is at their limit, and then the new patron replaces them, so the total stays flat, but then hopefully grows from there. So showing just two spots in a row at the same level could be good.
Of course, that hand-off is likely between crowdmatch points, so the actual donation points are likely to be below and then above the limit and unlikely to ever have precisely 10,000 patrons at the charge time. But I think illustrating the concept by showing two same-level bars at the hand-off is the clearest.
The baton-hand-off itself is a marvelous way to present this.