Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Solving the prisoner's dilemma in crowdfunding

[gmail gregor]

Hi Aaron,

umm, firstly - i've been following libreplanet discussion group for a
couple of years. Because i find the problematic it covers interesting
(obviously). Still, this is my first letter.

Just quickly went over snowdrift.coop and let me join in thanking you
for the effort. Also for many posts, here on libreplanet.

To the point: do you think that the snowdrift platform could be used,
for buying the rights on all sort of (digitally published/released)
works, then releasing them under public licences? (Via some mechanics
say: each donor gets to put one item on the wish list then choose 3
items (out of the same list) that he/she fancy liberating first.)

Anyhow, all the best
sincerely
g

On Fri, 2016-02-19 at 10:11 -0800, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> On 02/19/2016 09:56 AM, Pen-Yuan Hsing wrote:
> > Hi Aaron,
> > 
> > Thanks for the link to snowdrift.coop! I have always wondered about how
> > modern free (as in freedom) software projects can find a sustainable
> > source of funding, I think free software advocates need to seriously
> > tackle this issue, and looks like lots of thought went into your
> > project's design.
> > 
> > I've quickly read through a few of your linked pages. Sorry if I missed
> > something, but a few questions:
> > 
> > (1) If I sign up as a patron for a free software project, sounds like
> > I'll be making monthly contributions. However, I admit my default
> > attitude is to make one lump sum payment to obtain a piece of (libre)
> > software and leave it at that. Is snowdrift.coop's argument that I
> > should change this attitude to one where I'm willing to make monthly
> > contributions even after I have already obtained the software I want?
> > *Or* will it work if, for example, I decide I want to contribute $25 to
> > a software project, so I sign up to be a patron and pay small amounts
> > monthly until a total of $25 have been contributed after which I
> > "unsubscribe"?
> > 
> 
> Indeed, we are not coming to people and saying "we'll help you do
> exactly what you already thought you wanted", we're saying "all the
> assumptions you have do NOT work for *public goods* specifically. Public
> goods face the snowdrift dilemma: we all want the work, but we hesitate,
> waiting to see if others are going to help too because we all know
> intuitively that it won't happen without a critical mass of supporters.
> We're giving people a way to register their support flexibly with
> minimum risk and maximum impact. With our system, everyone knows that
> existing patrons are agreeing to contribute *more* when each new patron
> agrees to help.
> 
> We cannot have libre projects and a libre world if we think we just
> donate one lump sum. These things need to be sustained. The roads must
> be continually cleared and maintained. You shouldn't even think about
> the idea that you pay-for-access because these things are free to
> everyone. You'll get the results whether you pay or not, but if nobody
> pays, then nobody gets results.
> 
> Indeed, if you wanted to donate $25 specifically, you would sign up, and
> after $25 got put in, you could drop your support. However, we hope that
> by then you realize that your dropping will reduce the matching from
> others, that the project has more to do, and that you want the further
> results going forward, so you change your mind and decide to keep
> donating. I can say this for sure: basically everybody is *terrible* at
> predicting how they will feel in the future. Today, you can be sure that
> you are in control and can drop your pledge whenever you like, so
> there's no risk. We'll see how you feel later as you see progress from
> the projects you support.
> 
> 
> > (2) Is there a model for how *new* libre software projects can get off
> > the ground using the snowdrift.coop system?
> > 
> 
> We're not launched yet, so of course we have hypothetical ideas about
> how to get projects off the ground though. It could be as simple as a
> slow build: start something, get listed, slowly grow your support as you
> go. Or it could be just run a one-time crowdfunding campaign on one of
> the threshold systems (or self-hosted) that emphasize one-time things.
> We've reviewed all the existing platforms:
> 
> https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/othercrowdfunding
> 
> For now, our focus is on helping existing projects, but we'll be open to
> continuing to adapt to fit needs that come up as we go. Right now, we
> need to get launched ASAP, and we face all the same challenges as other
> libre projects and *more* given that we're a libre project and dealing
> with legal and money issues.
> 
> > (3) Can something like this be applied to free works in general and not
> > just software? If so, will this ever be part of the snowdrift.coop?
> > 
> 
> We absolutely *insist* that this is for all public goods, not just free
> software. We intend to start from the very beginning focusing on
> free/libre culture, education, research, journalism… as long as it's
> fully libre public goods. This is definitely not just about software.
> And that's a reason that an org like FSF or SFC isn't going to work as a
> simple umbrella organization (among other things), although people in
> these software organizations are supportive of us.
> 
> > Again I apologise if I misunderstood something, if so please correct me.
> > Thanks for doing such a cool project, do let me know how I can help!
> > 
> 
> We have a how-to-help page:
> https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/how-to-help
> 
> And we're working to continue improving our organization in terms of how
> to get people on board, up to speed, and finding the best ways to help
> us get launched. Thanks for your interest, I look forward to working
> with you!
> 
> > On 19/02/16 17:36, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> >> On 02/19/2016 06:42 AM, Fabio Pesari wrote:
> >>> Alice wants to build X, and Bob wants to fund Alice's effort. X is to be
> >>> released under a free license.
> >>>
> >>> There's a problem, though: Bob doesn't want to pay in advance, because
> >>> he's afraid Alice will not deliver X as promised. In a typical
> >>> crowdfunding scenario, there are hundreds of Bobs, so this issue is even
> >>> worsened.
> >>>
> >>> Likewise, Alice doesn't want to be paid at work finished, because she's
> >>> afraid Bob won't pay her. She's also afraid that her time or budget
> >>> estimate might be wrong, which might ruin her reputation forever even if
> >>> she works earnestly.
> >>>
> >>> Both scenarios happened in the past, so their paranoia might be
> >>> justified, but the lack of crowdfunding efforts right now is IMO the #1
> >>> reason free software development is often slow and/or has to compromise
> >>> (often by adopting permissive licenses, which inevitably helps
> >>> proprietary programs).
> >>>
> >>> How to keep blind trust out of the equation?
> >>>
> >>> My proposal: a nonprofit organization evaluates Alice's project. If they
> >>> determine her time estimate is right and her prior experience is
> >>> sufficient to develop X, they raise funds for it and keep them as an
> >>> escrow.
> >>>
> >>> After the time limit expires, the organization's committee
> >>> thoroughly evaluates X against the initial goals Alice set out to
> >>> accomplish (works well for software and hardware designs but doesn't
> >>> work for art, obviously).
> >>>
> >>> If the committee acknowledges that X fits the original specifications,
> >>> Alice is given all of Bob's money, which she rightfully earned.
> >>>
> >>> If, however, it doesn't, Alice will still be forced to release
> >>> all the work she's done under a free license, and the original funders
> >>> (the Bobs) will be allowed to withdraw their donated sum if they aren't
> >>> satisfied with what they see.
> >>>
> >>> In short, in order to give out refunds:
> >>>
> >>> 1) The organization judges Alice's product as unfit to the original
> >>>     specifications
> >>> 2) Each funder must voluntarily ask for a refund (so, if a funder is
> >>>     satisfied with Alice's unfinished work, they can still pay her)
> >>>
> >>> I think this is fair to both Bob and Alice. It's slightly weighted in
> >>> Bob's favor, sure, but as we said there are always more funders than
> >>> developers in crowdfunding and as a free software supporter, I believe
> >>> users come before developers, so the whole community should benefit from
> >>> Alice's work in any case.
> >>>
> >>> What do you think? Would this be feasible for an organization like the
> >>> FSF or the SFConservancy?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Just come help us with the existing effort!
> >>
> >> I and a few dozen other people have already been working hard for a long
> >> time (and making great progress lately) on creating an entire holistic
> >> platform to address all these issues. Please come join us.
> >>
> >> The site is: https://snowdrift.coop
> >>
> >> The dilemma we're solving is the "Snowdrift Dilemma" which is actually
> >> more accurate fit to the problems than the Prisoner's Dilemma because
> >> *most* free projects are not cases of totally speculative things in
> >> threat of total failure, they are struggling projects under-fundeded.
> >>
> >> We describe all the economics and game theory things on pages like:
> >>
> >> https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/snowdrift
> >> and
> >> https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/economics
> >>
> >> and other pages describe our mechanism etc.
> >>
> >> In short, all sorts of one-time huge grants are problematic, and all
> >> sorts of pre-set assertions about the costs and exact form of
> >> deliverables are all somewhat toxic ways to fund free projects. Nobody
> >> is great at predicting all these things and conflicts over disagreements
> >> about whether work fits the original specifications end up destroying
> >> communities. It's like the long tried and often failed approaches to
> >> "bug bounties" and such. We have pages describing all these issues
> >> such as:
> >>
> >> https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/threshold-systems
> >> https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/status-quo-floss
> >>
> >> The answer we propose is to focus on projects that already have history,
> >> which is almost all free projects. There's no priority area for free
> >> software that has zero efforts so far. What we do is just use an
> >> *ongoing* funding instead of huge lump sum. You can trust the project is
> >> real because they *already exist*. You can keep them accountable because
> >> you can decide whether you like or dislike the progress you see
> >> month-to-month. There must be no threat that the project will do work
> >> and then have the money taken away. The threat is that their support
> >> will discontinue if the work they do is unsatisfactory to the funders.
> >>
> >> Our model addresses the snowdrift dilemma *while* being ongoing by just
> >> saying that Bob will donate a small amount each month per the number of
> >> other patrons who donate with him, starting at $1 per 1,000 patrons. The
> >> reason free projects struggle and fail is from lack of resources and
> >> lack of numbers of supporters. The issue is people's sense that their
> >> input makes not enough difference, not that they have no trust in the
> >> project to do the work.
> >>
> >> Anyway, we have lots more writings, lots more stuff about what we're
> >> trying to do, we're in touch with the SFC and FSF folks and are a formal
> >> affiliate of the OSI. I can tell you more about all the details, but you
> >> (and anyone else interested) should come join us and help us finish the
> >> work we need to get the system launched and operating.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Aaron
> > 
> 
>