Page comparing Snowdrift.coop to other platforms

This is connected to https://gitlab.com/snowdrift/design/issues/110 - specifically drafting the text and deciding on which platforms to compare to on this page, which will link to https://wiki.snowdrift.coop/market-research/other-crowdfunding for people who are interested in that level of detail.

The latest mockup from @mray for which I’m working on text and platforms is this:

I’d welcome feedback on the latest draft, which is:

===

Platforms to compare to:

Kickstarter, Patreon, Open Collective, Go Fund Me, Ko-Fi, Flattr

===

Attributes in the table and text below the table explaining them:

Mutual assurance: As a patron you can rest assured that you’re not donating alone. What you donate is linked to others donating as well. With crowdmatching, it’s a direct link: You donate exactly in proportion to how many others donate too.

Ongoing funding: Our focus is on enabling reliable support for ongoing development and maintenance of public goods, rather than one-time campaigns like those enabled by Kickstarter.

For public goods: We enable funding specifically for public goods. This means all projects funded via Snowdrift.coop produce goods that are fully free and open to all, with no catches, no exclusions or limitations, and no features hidden behind paywalls.

No fees: We want 100% of patrons’ donations to benefit the projects patrons want to support. We encourage all patrons to consider supporting Snowdrift.coop, but we don’t require projects to give us any cut of the donations they receive. (Payment processor fees do not go to Snowdrift.coop.)

Non-profit: We exist only to serve our mission, not to make profits for investors.

Co-op: We run the platform and make all our decisions democratically. Anyone can become a co-op member by becoming a patron of the Snowdrift project.

FLO: Out platform itself is Free / Libre / Open (CC BY‑SA for content except trademarks, and GNU AGPLv3+ for code).

Of course, there are many other crowdfunding platforms out there, including some notable ones like Goteo, CrowdSupply, BountySource, and Liberapay. See our [thorough report] (https://wiki.snowdrift.coop/market-research/other-crowdfunding)which reviews nearly all of them.

===

Great work! I think this is a usable draft, even though I’d tweak some things.

Note about Flattr: they are extra weird; the fixed zero-sum amount per-patron is distributed by white-listing sites where attention time is tracked. So, only the whitelisting makes it different from all the myriad problems that come from the attention tracking focus of modern ad-based media. I agree including them is fine, but they almost are a different beast where our chart won’t capture what’s weird about them.

Good but lots of redundancy. Assurance/assured; donating/donate/donating/donate/donate; linked/link. I think something that captures that donating with a tiny group is not great either (alone isn’t the only issue). I think the text could reference “coordination” somehow. How about (just some wordings for consideration, not perfect):

Patrons coordinate to encourage a critical mass of support. Each patron knows that they’re part of a larger group — all sharing the burden and making a greater difference together. With crowdmatching, it’s a direct link: You donate exactly in proportion to how many others donate too.

I’d not mention Kickstarter here since it’s clear in the chart, and the concept of a campaign is enough. I suggest:

Instead of one-time campaigns, we provide regular, sustaining donations. Ongoing funding enables reliable and accountable project development.

(key point to include there is accountability, something one-time campaigns notoriously struggle with)

I had a chat with @mray about how we can potentially make a longer, separate explanation of the significance of public goods and the scope of our platform. So, I think we can keep this entry here as short as possible as long as we have other details to link to.

I don’t think we care about the 100% going to projects as the principle. I think the principle we have is that we aren’t creating extra conflict-of-interest or power issues with us being a middle-man. I would use language like this:

We don’t impose fees or take a cut of donations to other projects. Instead, we fund our own development and maintenance as just another project.

This doesn’t state why we do it that way, it just makes it clear what our intended operations are. It should be clear why people may care about that. I see it as just statement about us not using/abusing power in relationships.

The rest of the draft looks good to me!