Questioning how itself should be funded

True, but it’s not just that. It’s also that I think the threshold for pledging to the platform itself is much higher than the threshold for being happy to have a small percentage of one’s donation to another project go to support the platform. You have to really be a fan of the platform itself, vs. just using the platform to support whatever project(s) you are already a fan of. If can only become able to function reliably after attracting a crowd of many thousands of people who are sufficiently excited about the platform itself that they are willing to donate several dollars a month, that seems like a problem to me.

A more general related point is that I think it would be good to do some realistic planning of how much funding will actually need to function reliably, without any critical functions depending on unpaid volunteers. Then the next question would be how to ensure that this minimum viable funding gets established soon enough. With the current plan of being funded only by a crowd of people pledging directly to, how big would that crowd have to become to achieve that minimum viable funding? And is it plausible that the crowd could get that big while in the meantime is attempting to function without adequate resources being available.

1 Like

I think part of the attraction of “we take no fees” is actually covered by “we’re a nonprofit coop, so any fees we do take are only going to keep the platform running, and we have no incentive to take fees higher than necessary for that”.

We could certainly still have, and express, the goal of not having to ask for any fees - contingent on having a large enough crowd of patrons that no fees are needed to sustain the platform.

However, I still think it’s important to consider that is not simply a creator and maintainer of public goods, and so isn’t actually an exact match for the type of project aims to fund. The costs of running that are not attributable to the creation and maintenance of public goods are perhaps actually more suitably funded by some sort of small contribution from everyone using the platform, rather than just larger contributions from a group of dedicated fans?

1 Like

I need to find the time for a longer post, but for now I will address this point by saying that we can easily say “we require no fees*” “* but we do make it easy for projects to transparently give us a percentage of their funding”

1 Like

I see the sensible points behind your opinions. We can still claim to be superior in our financial structure in any case. One thing still would be an open question to me, given that we try to get a “fixed” or “implicit” share of donations one way or the other:

Wouldn’t we put a cap on what could potentially be something that grows larger than our relatively arbitrary standard share? Because in one way or the other we would have to aim for a certain size of the chunk we are after. We would be robbing ourselves of getting larger amounts that we might not be “asking” for otherwise. We can’t get love-bombed for our own project anymore and depend on other projects success. Which – especially in the beginning – will be really ambitious.
Of course we could do both: take a share AND be our own project, but then again that makes supporting us a bit convoluted. I like the idea of people physically feeling how we take a step back and give them control. How their support is always a choice on their side and not a mechanism.

Also to some degree I must admit the “practice what you preach” hits home with me on that issue, too. It is weird to set up such infrastructure and then not make use of it ourselves. If Kickstarter or Patreon couldn’t kickstart themselves because of VC involvement, what is our excuse to not crowdmatch ourselves? :wink:

To be clear, I’m not opposed to what you all suggest – It is just that I would prefer to try doing the cheeky, simple and sexy thing and see if it works :smile:

1 Like

That is indeed an important problem we need to keep in mind either way.

Maybe that is true, but in order to raise a substantial amount of money through implicit fees we would have to be hosting multiple really successful projects. Alternatively our slice would have to be really big. I think we can’t escape that we as a platform need to be something that people explicitly support. Established funding platforms and their respective projects are available, and if we gain traction it isn’t because we are more streamlined, work easier, faster and are better known – I suspect we just have to underline our main selling points and build upon them. At least until we are a more experienced project.

Maybe you are too optimistic here :smile: if people don’t even notice what snowdrift is, and how it is different – they just care about supporting project X and go along with us – I think we would be in an exceptionally good position already.

1 Like

@mray has really articulated my thoughts here, everything from the open-mindedness (we’ll consider the ideas and be open to changing as needed) to the points that we shouldn’t give up on no-fee before it has a chance.

I think there’s a population of people who will be more enthusiastic about than about any individual project. They almost feel it more of a burden to deal with choosing which projects deserve their support. What they want is for our overall mission to succeed (a FLO future etc). I don’t know how big that population is, but still.

The nag ideas are fine, and once we have co-op governance in place, everyone can participate on accepting fees rather than feel that it was imposed by the founding team. Also, the perk of being a platform patron is membership in the co-op.

On the idea that we’re not a regular public goods project: that’s partly true. But it’s also true that many public goods require maintenance. If our costs scale with increased usage of the platform, that’s less public-good. But if the majority of our costs are the same whether we have 50k patrons and 30 projects or 500k patrons and 30k projects, then we are effectively a public good.

The definition of public goods isn’t related to whether there’s ongoing maintenance costs. It’s whether it’s non-rivalrous and non-exclusive. So, if we don’t require a fee for patrons or projects to join and each new project or patron incurs relatively little new cost, then we’re pretty much a public good; at least enough to fit the same economic situation that crowdmatching addresses.

Just for reference, this is no easy task!

Drip was a project designed for continuous funding for creators of all sorts. in 2016 they announced they were shutting down, and a month later they ended up joining Kickstarter. Drip still exists as an invite only with a 100+ projects to support but plans were announced for a platform to be succeeded by a project that would be a partnership between Kickstarter and XOXOfest (the most succesful Kickstarter-funded event, apparently). Last month, they announced they halted development of the project. :grimacing:

Ultimately, we couldn’t find a way to make the business viable. We explored a number of different options—voluntary subscriptions from users, premium features, increased fees—but the resources required to support a high number of lower-volume creators always outpaced our revenue.

The good news is they only tried to make it work for 7 months before calling it quits. While surely they had a decent amount of resources, I’m sure they were also attempting to make a profit from the project, and of course hosting a lot of smaller projects that don’t bring in as much revenue is more difficult. So focusing on larger projects and scaling from there seems like a more sustainable development schedule for! Either way, it’s clear this is not a situation in which immediate success can be assumed so I hope everyone keeps up the good work!

Perhaps, but it’s more important to not give up on crowdmatching itself before it has a chance. My concern is that being too attached to the no-fee idea could prevent crowdmatching from getting off the ground.

@Salt I think this is a topic it would be worth getting feedback on from Kodi and other potential projects. My biggest concern is that they will perceive too much risk in encouraging their fan base to support them via at a stage where itself doesn’t yet have a reliable source of funding and depends entirely for its functioning on the availability and goodwill of volunteers.

1 Like

Indeed, let’s not be too attached. I think we should avoid making no-fee seem a key selling point. I’d rather emphasize the non-profit aspect and the values that we have that go in the no-fee direction (such as caring about economic transparency overall).

I think we need to keep emphasizing larger grant donations until at least we are fully, fully launched.

Perhaps the position we want is like this: We want an abundance mentality and have hopes of crowdmatching working for the platform itself too. Aside from launch-sponsor donations, we plan to start without any extra fees. We hope to not need them. And we will make any such decisions as a co-op community. So, fees aren’t some unilateral thing we just impose universally. This is part of having a different sort of relationship with the community than the non-co-op, for-profits have.


Here’s an article I found interesting and thought provoking in relation to this discussion, from Nathan Schneider:

While related, I don’t see how that’s applicable to That startup model is based on having initial investors who expect some return. Whereas with, I didn’t take an investment share of a potentially-profitable business. The question is how it could even be sustained ever. And I will never get any direct return on the massive time, energy, and money I’ve put in.

Nathan’s article is about businesses that have equity and which have enough potential to sell to new investors. He’s saying they should embrace co-op investors (the community) rather than only IPOs or sell-out to existing for-profit companies.

I didn’t mean to imply direct applicability to as in “hey, we should seek investors!”. I just found it thought-provoking in relation to this discussion about funding in the process of getting started. What interested me about it was the idea that something could be initially funded by investors who want a return, but then become community-owned, potentially by a community whose interest in owning it has nothing to do with profit. They just want it to exist and serve the community, and collectively are wiling to pay/donate enough to satisfy the original investors. Of course the investors would need to be sufficiently convinced that there was a community out there that would buy it from them for that purpose, at a high enough price.


Sure. In a sense, it’s a form of ransom (mentioned at and Though Nathan is talking more about businesses than about FLO works (and that distinction or the fuzziness of where stands in that distinction) may be one reason you thought of this topic in conjunction with his article.

The point is that for to make a difference it has to get off the ground and quickly become sustainable.

When you have contributors from germany, you can get funding for their work from! might also be an option.

I think to be sustainable, the system has to be functional. It isn’t for me because i don’t have a credit card and SEPA payment is not implemented. To get more crowdmatching contributors, actual projects will help!


I am ashamed to say that I still haven’t found the time for the longer response, but will say that my mind has fluctuated regularly and has yet to find a stable side to stay on. We’ll make this a topic at the next weekly meeting. Thanks for keeping the thread alive!

thanks @davidak2 for your insight!

When you have contributors from germany, you can get funding for their work from!

This could be helpful! but I can’t read the German (@mray and/or @fr33domlover?)

Will read more on this later, but does sound like it could have some promise as is related to many issues, though not the absolute ideal fit, seems like it may be worth investigating deeper.

Thanks for your willingness to support, hopefully we can implement SEPA in the near future and can get ya pledged! In the meantime it’s always great to get feedback and input on this forum!

For one of the requirements is that self employed programmers living in Germany have to receive the money.

1 Like

I was having a conversation about last night and an interesting perspective came up that this is likely the correct thread for.

We passed on the idea of a wallet fairly early on when deciding on the simpler model. Due to this, we didn’t really dig into the idea of reoccurring top-ups.

Some people, when donating to a cause, would likely prefer to be able to give a set number of dollars every month.

What if we provide an option to give a fixed amount to the site? These funds will be dispersed to any of the projects that the person is backing based on those specific project’s rates. All remaining funds will be given to as a way to improve the base platform.

I want to be very clear that this would be an option, rather than a requirement. That being said, it seems likely that enough people would take this option on to help in the platform funding, especially early on. Remember, as projects gain more backers, we would receive less from this particular stream.


1 Like

I can relate to the problem and to the way you suppose to fix it. Most certainly you are right about people wanting to donate non-trivial amounts especially in the beginning.

I just think we should feel an obligation to handle flow of money transparently and easy to understand – despite – having a rather complex mechanism.

Adding one extra way of how money gets handled by us won’t do us a favor in the long run I guess. In that regard I’d even prefer completely separate paypal donations – if only for clarity and simplicity.


I think this thread has two near, but distinct, questions. One being how to fund until launch. The other about funding post launch, but before there are enough backers to overcome the snowdrift dilemma while maintaining the platform for other projects.