Limits wiki page, framing the budget limit decision-point

Related to updating, this is also about how we design our UX and communicate overall about the system.

The limit provides a control point, but we don’t want patrons to be out, we’d like if they end up deciding that it’s worth continuing after all…

I think of the analogy of a credit-card that will block transactions above a certain point as a security measure, calling you to verify if you want them to go ahead (and blocking it by default until they hear from you otherwise).

In the final video script I used the language “the system will check with you and won’t keep you in the crowd if you don’t want to continue”.

The core message is that you have control, not that crowdmatching is designed to kick people out.

So, we should figure out the optimal balance between clearly being opt-in to higher-budgets while making it clear that, for the sake of FLO public goods, we want people to opt-in if they can.


1 Like

In Add limit UI element to the illustration? I asked to change the description of the function of the limit from

Puts a cap on your participation


You never donate more than you intended to

I think that is the key point to get across about the purpose and function of the limit. I think we should aim to stay quite neutral and matter of fact about the limit, supporting the patron’s autonomy and not risking coming across as even subtly trying to cajole them into raising their limit. We should assume that the reason anyone has signed up as a patron is that they want to support one or more of the FLO projects on Snowdrift. What their limit should be is a very personal and private matter that we should stay out of, other than making it clear what the limit is, how it works, and that they are in control of it.


While I agree completely with everything you said, there’s two quite-separate issues about communication:

  1. How we frame the limit for each patron having control
  2. How we frame the limit in describing the nature of crowdmatching for people thinking about the concept and how it is supposed to work for FLO funding

It’s the latter that I’m getting at more. It’s in that context where I don’t want people to think broadly that crowdmatching assumes a fixed limit. In that case especially (as well as the former case), the idea that the limit can be expected to change flexibly is key, even as it’s emphasized that the flexibility is entirely in the hands of the patrons.

So, per this topic’s category, this is about how we discuss limits on the wiki page (and maybe on how-it-works, not sure) in terms of the overall place in crowdmatching as a system.

Any change to the descriptive text on that illustration would ideally start with “YOUR LIMIT -> …”

I totally agree with your rationale and am open for better phrasing.