You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Lumifer comments on Open thread, Jan. 26 - Feb. 1, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion

6 Post author: Gondolinian 26 January 2015 12:46AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (431)
Tags: open_thread

Comments (431)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: bogus 28 January 2015 05:05:56PM 3 points [-]

Snowdrift.coop is essentially trying to solve the same problem in a different way. Instead of changing the product price as more units are sold, they ask folks to finance its fixed component directly, using a game-theoretic mechanism that increases total contributions superlinearly as more people choose to contribute. (This boosts the effectiveness of any single user's contributions through a "matching" effect). However, there is no distinction between "earlier" vs. "later" contributors; they're all treated the same. The underlying goal is to generalize the successful assurance-contract mechanism to goods and services that do not have a well-defined 'threshold' of feasibility, especially services that must be funded continuously over time.

Comment author: Lumifer 28 January 2015 05:32:24PM 2 points [-]

Snowdrift.coop is essentially trying to solve the same problem in a different way.

I don't think Snowdrift understands why communism failed (or economics in general).

Comment author: bogus 28 January 2015 06:01:47PM 0 points [-]

Not sure how communism is relevant here. Snowdrift.coop's mechanism is entirely private and voluntary, and assuming that it works properly, it's incentive properties are superior to typical charities or governments.

Comment author: Lumifer 28 January 2015 06:05:27PM *  2 points [-]

Not sure how communism is relevant here

To quote from Snowdrift's site:

I kept thinking: All of the funding that goes to proprietary software could, in principle, go to Free Software; all of the funding for copyright restricted music and educational resources could, in principle, go to works licensed with Creative Commons. The value to society would be greater if everyone has access and ability to build upon the work of others.

.

it's incentive properties are superior to typical charities or governments

That remains to be seen. Its incentive properties are basically "winner take all". Maybe they should have called the project Snowball, not Snowdrift.

Comment author: bogus 28 January 2015 06:38:20PM 1 point [-]

All of the funding that goes to proprietary software could, in principle, go to Free Software; all of the funding for copyright restricted music and educational resources could, in principle, go to works licensed with Creative Commons.

How is this wrong? Kickstarter, IndieGogo and similar projects have boosted the funding of FLOSS software and CC artworks/educational works significantly. Snowdrift.coop is simply an extension of that model.

The 'winner take all' properties of Snowdrift.coop are overstated. If you think a project is raising 'too much', you're free to compensate by reducing your stake, although this will nullify the incentive effect of your contribution. There is no way of escaping this - the same change in incentives happens on Kickstarter when "the goal" is reached. Here, the "goal" of contributions is fuzzy and entirely determined by funders' choices.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit