allow for one-off tips

[chadwhitacre]

The essence of Gittip is recurring tips, but once we solidify that I'm open to mixing in one-offs.

The reason recurring tips are important is because my mortgage is recurring and Gittip is about paying my mortgage.

There is a $80 open bounty on this issue. Add to the bounty at Bountysource.

[chadwhitacre]

@isaacs On the flip side, Gittip is designed to reward ongoing, sustained achievement, not erratic flashes of brilliance.

[isaacs]

My current thinking on how we'll implement this is that we'll disburse one-time payments over 10 weeks. That will dampen spikes and crashes while still allowing for one-offs.

That sucks. I want someone to KNOW that they're being rewarded for something specific.

Current strategy: Get their address, and mail them a check.

[balupton]

I'm with @isaacs on this, gittip getting in the way of people getting money doesn't seem to make sense. It just makes life harder for us.

+1 for one-off tips from me.

[chadwhitacre]

I want someone to KNOW that they're being rewarded for something specific.

Then tweet at them. :-)

[isaacs]

Can you explain how it serves the giver or receiver to hold the money in escrow for 10 weeks?

[chadwhitacre]

Can you explain how it serves the giver or receiver to hold the money in escrow for 10 months?

10 weeks, not months.

[nicksergeant]

This is an awfully long GH issue for a simple feature ;)

From @whit537: "disburse one-time payments over 10 weeks". I don't think this qualifies as a "one-time" payment. My current strategy for gifting people like this is PayPal'ing them money.

1. User does something I like (or want, or need).
2. I send them money somehow.
3. They get money in a reasonable timeframe (not 10 weeks).

Just my 2 cents, again... and again... :-p

[chadwhitacre]

Gittip's focus on recurring, sustainable funding is it's special sauce. We've had PayPal buttons for years. If we tack on simple one-offs then we turn Gittip into a much less mature PayPal.

[nicksergeant]

A much less mature PayPal that caters to its specific niche much better than PayPal does. Imagine Gittip providing me a UI showing me one-off tips to folks in the past, urging me to consider a weekly donation for their good-will.

You can still push sustainable funding next to the (apparently large group of) people who want to send one-off tips with Gittip :)

[chadwhitacre]

My point there is that PayPal buttons have not disrupted open-source funding. Implementing simple one-offs is short-term gain, and that's not what Gittip is about. Gittip is about sustainable, recurring funding streams. Gittip is about lifting our gaze up from the immediate Internet-speed hyper fad cycle. Ten weeks is really not that long. That's two months rent.

[nicksergeant]

Ten weeks is long enough for me to never consider using the Gittip one-off feature for one-off tips. Even two weeks is too long.

[chadwhitacre]

Ten weeks is long enough for me to never consider using the Gittip one-off feature for one-off tips. Even two weeks is too long.

To be clear: we would charge the donor immediately. As a giver the experience would be "get charged $100 and that money is going to @foo."

Imagine Gittip providing me a UI showing me one-off tips to folks in the past, urging me to consider a weekly donation for their good-will.

Right. My thought was to prompt on the second one-time payment suggesting a recurring payment calculated from the amount of the first payment and the time between the first and second (or third or ...).

[chadwhitacre]

The other problem with simple one-offs is that it violates Gittip's "no-strings-attached" design constraint. With simple one-offs we're back to a transactional economy. "You fixed my bug. Here's $20." That's not Gittip.

[nicksergeant]

That seems too complicated of a scenario (suggesting scheduled payments based on the first automatically-figured-out-payment-based-on-one-time-payment).

The other problem with simple one-offs is that it violates Gittip's "no-strings-attached" design constraint. With simple one-offs we're back to a transactional economy. "You fixed my bug. Here's $20." That's not Gittip.

But what if that $20 never got offered because that person is just some random GitHub user and you'd never figure out how to send them money via PayPal? If the mindset is "hey, this person helped me out, let me see if they're on Gittip", then Gittip is still serving its original purpose.

[chadwhitacre]

That seems too complicated of a scenario (suggesting scheduled payments based on the first automatically-figured-out-payment-based-on-one-time-payment).

Meh. That's down the line. I think we can figure something out when we get to it. :-)

But what if that $20 never got offered because that person is just some random GitHub user and you'd never figure out how to send them money via PayPal? If the mindset is "hey, this person helped me out, let me see if they're on Gittip", then Gittip is still serving its original purpose.

Agreed. It's not like we're going to emphasize the 10-week disbursement to the giver. To the giver it'll just look like they're making a one-time payment to whomever.

On the other hand, we're not going to emphasize it to the receiver, either. To the receiver it will just be a 10-week swell in income, lost amidst all the other swells and decreases in income.

The principle here is variability pooling: "Overall variation decreases when uncorrelated random tasks are combined" (p. 95). The "random tasks" in this case are individual gifts. Gittip is about taking a highly variable stream of gifts and converting it into a steady income.

[nicksergeant]

Agreed. It's not like we're going to emphasize the 10-week disbursement to the giver. To the giver it'll just look like they're making a one-time payment to whomever.

That's even worse, IMO. As a giver I'm saying "here you are fine sir, take $100." And they message me later saying "oh I only get that $100 over 10 weeks...".

On the other hand, we're not going to emphasize it to the receiver, either. To the receiver it will just be a 10-week swell in income, lost amidst all the other swells in income.

I actually really like that idea, to swell my giving to someone for a specific period of time. But that is an entirely different use-case from one-off tipping.

[chadwhitacre]

Gittip isn't a game. It's not about little extras, little bonuses that are sort of sprinkled on top—for my real income of course I have to get a real job. Gittip is about the money I'm depending on to pay my bills and buy health insurance for my kids. Gittip is salary replacement. Periodic one-time gifts are not salary replacement.

[nicksergeant]

Gittip is salary replacement.

Most people with salaries are also familiar with the idea of bonuses in the form of extra chunks in their next paycheck :-p

[chadwhitacre]

:-P

[cogat]

Chad, I'd consider letting go of the idea that sustainability is Gittip's 'special sauce'. To me, Gittip's 'special sauce', compared with Paypal and the like, is its focus on the open-source community, its radical transparency, public acknowledgement of donations, and the work it's doing to educate the world about the value of the community. And yes, sustainability is part of that, but it really doesn't seem like sustainability fits as the central motive and limiting factor for the people who want to use Gittip as opposed to other means, at either end of the transaction. Let me try to explain why, from a couple of points of view:

First, as a potential funder who is currently excluded from participation: I'm the owner of a mid-weight web development company who regularly uses open source software and developers, and I would love to fund projects using Gittip. However, there is not a good cognitive or economic match between the value that I receive (software licences, bug fixes, blog posts) and the mode of paying for it. It's just too much of an ask for me to fund someone "for ever more" for a value that I receive "once" (and/or can only bill my clients for once). I'm a businessman, not a philanthropist. I also don't see Gittip recipients as part-employees, which is why the intent of Gittip being a salary replacement just doesn't ring true for me as a funder.

Second, as a potential recipient who would rely on Gittip for at least part of his income: When Gittip presumes to restrict the kinds of payments that are allowed and how that money should be parcelled out to me, it seems condescending as though you think I don't know how to manage my own cash flow; whereas in fact it is Gittip that doesn't have my complete financial picture. The effect you appear to be aiming for is for Gittip to smooth out the bumps in variable income, but Gittip is not the right place for that decision to be made. People have wider financial circumstances, and are better off deciding what income to accept and what to do with it in ways that are relevant to them.

More specifically, excluding any variable sources of income is a rather short-sighted approach to the problem of sustainability. Even if 1000 people are paying you regularly, why would you then turn away more money from people who can only make one-off payments? It's like an electricity company that refuses to distribute electricity from wind farms because the wind doesn't blow all the time. Let's only distribute coal energy because that's continuous and will never run out, right? There are many smart solutions, but I can't help but feel that Gittip would get better traction if it let payers pay, and recipients receive, in a way that fits with their own models.

Allowing one-off payments, and passing them directly to recipients, would fix those things, and would in no way compromise your ability to receive sustainable, recurring payments.

[seanlinsley]

@cogat, given the earlier conversations I think @whit537 already understands that one-off payments would be useful. To your second point, why can't we all live together happily? And by that I mean: why can't the default option be for one-off tips to pay out over a given time period? Being an option, the user could choose an immediate payout if they thought that was what was best for them.

If for no other reason, Gittip shouldn't "hide" your money from you while also preaching openness and transparency.

[seanlinsley]

That's not to say it's necessarily being hidden, but a great majority of uninformed users will interpret the situation that way.

[cogat]

@Daxter yup, no real issue with the implementation (though more options is sometimes a complicating solution). I just wanted to caution against rigid adherence to the 'sustainable-only' philosophy in defiance of the way the economy operates, and in denial of people's wish to manage their income for themselves. From my point of view, Gittip has more important things to do.

[balupton]

@cogat very well put. +1000

@Daxter The problem with it being dispersed over time is that gittip is then still in the practice of making decisions for us in a disempowering way under the illusion it knows what is best for us, it should be the user who knows best with the user in control of their finances, not gittip. Gittip should be a platform for money exchange that the community can utilize to accomplish what they want, not what gittip wants, not behaving like some overly controlling parent distributing our birthday gifts as allowance.

[isaacs]

As a giver, I have $1000 that I'd like to give to a specific developer, once. As a receiver, I would like to receive that $1000.

Option A: Gittip takes my $1000 and gives it to the receiver, right now, all at once. Option B: Gittip does anything other than that.

Who is served by option B? How?

Explanations provided:

1. Allowing one-off payments encourages gittip to be a transactional paypal-like system.
2. Allowing one-off payments exposes receivers to potentially fluctuating income.

However, neither of these are compelling to me. Historically, adults have proven eminently capable of figuring out what to do with sporadic revenue flows. Transactional payments are a cornerstone of successful business.

I think what you're trying to get at is that you don't want to approach an appstore-like experience, where developers sell work under proprietary licenses to those who pay to use it. That's not what's going to happen, though, because you aren't encouraging that kind of experience. Open source is winful; it just has to be allowed and encouraged. If you don't build an app store, you won't end up with one by accident.

If your goal actually is "paycheck replacement", then you should be doing everything to grow the ecosystem in any way possible. Until you can point to people making $150k annually, you should be getting out of the way of any money flowing through your system. At the moment, the top receiver gets $464.60 per week, or just under $25k. Those figures need to go way up, but a factor of 5 or 6.

I can easily replace my paycheck with a single annual payment, if it's big enough. I have bank accounts and investments. I'm an adult. If someone makes a payment to me, all at once, and gittip dictates how fast it should be paid out, how is that any different than me giving gittip an interest-free loan, from my point of view?

Transparency is not served by reproducing opaque systems. The paycheck will not be replaced by something that is indistinguishable from a paycheck, but by something that is financially better for those on both ends of it.

[mvdkleijn]

Breaking into the conversation here...

I for one absolutely love the regular weekly income scenario of Gittip. I agree completely with Chad's vision of salary replacement. Sorry guys, but the one off donations are nice but way too irregular for me (and most other OSS devs I think) to even be able to have a "normal" life and give up my regular job.

I think Gittip.org's transparency, et all is very nice but not the core idea around Gittip. The core idea has always (in my view) been salary replacement. Gittip LLC is about the open company et all.

If you want one-off payments, use PayPal, credit cards, Flattr or any of the other alternatives already around. I don't believe we need yet another one-off payment system. That's the whole reason I'm supporting Gittip at least.

True, for Gittip to reach the goal of sustainable, regular income, it will have to grow massively but that takes other things than simply "stepping out of the way of the flow of money". Also keep in mind that people have to get used to the idea of making regular donations. Its a new concept and admittedly our marketing has been not so good... :smile:

Gittip's function is to provide a buffer between somewhat random givers and their receivers who need more stable incomes. This allows receivers to get a relatively stable income whilst allowing givers to start and stop giving without too much impact on total income stability.

I would argue that one-off payments, though nice, are detrimental to overall OSS support. Developers more quickly feel obliged to pay more attention to the giver's wishes rather than continue on the way they have been. You'd have to be very strong willed to keep going as normal. If you dig deep down inside you'll always treat such a giver slightly different.

Also, I believe someone giving a one time amount of $ 1,000.- publicly causes other potential givers to think their gift will be "too low" or "no longer necessary". Apart from the fact that for most OSS developers of smaller projects, getting a $ 1,000.- donation is a dream that rarely if ever comes true.

In any case, 2, 3, 5 or even 10 people giving $ 1,000.- one time won't cut it. You need sustainable income that comes in regularly (not everyone is good at investing, even if you'd consider that a wise move, which I don't) and you want no serious impact from the loss of one or even a few givers who decide to stop giving. If 5 people give me $ 1,000.- annually (if only that were true), one of those 5 leaving would cause a serious dent in my income.

The idea here is many small amounts make one stable, big amount.

[mvdkleijn]

Historically, adults have proven eminently capable of figuring out what to do with sporadic revenue flows. Transactional payments are a cornerstone of successful business.

Not successful employees. Historically speaking, people's lives only started improving after regular, stable incomes appeared on the scene. Regular incomes allow people to use a larger portion of their income to provide food, housing and "luxury" items for their families whilst still building a nest-egg for future emergencies.

Sporadic revenue flows cause people to increase the size of their savings (if they can even afford to) causing them to be less able to afford items and services for them and their families. People sitting on their money also has a negative effect on the overall economy if enough people do that.

The recessions showed us clearly each time that instability and uncertainty concerning their incomes cause people to sit on their money. Consumers sitting on their money means they don't spend it, causing a downwards economic spiral since businesses can't afford to keep people employed with decreasing turnovers.

[tshepang]

@whit537 the idea of spreading one-off donations to some (arbitrary) number of weeks is the worst I've ever heard from you, especially since you want that fact to be 'hidden'. I am in total agreement with @cogat's omment. If need be, make once-offs a second-class feature.

[markoheijnen]

I change my mind and go -1 for this. I agree with @whit537 and @mvdkleijn.

If you want to pay someone a 1000 dollars then you won't use gittip since I guess you also want to have an invoice for it. I'm going to build a separate page on my site for one tips and use something like Stripe for international folks and iDeal for Dutch folks.

[mvdkleijn]

@markoheijnen Interesting fact on the side: they're building an EU wide version of iDeal called MyBank which you might want to use instead of iDeal? Mollie B.V. has an interesting short explanation on it: https://www.mollie.nl/betaaldiensten/mybank/ Should become available "this summer".

(disclaimer: I'm not affiliated in any way)

[mvdkleijn]

While I understand the position of certain potential funders, I also believe it is not up to the funders to decide how a receiver of funds collects them. It should be easy for the funder to donate, but they shouldn't be forcing a certain way onto the receiver.

The old way was simple for receivers: just receive it once, immediately and (fingers crossed) hope people donate more than once.

Gittip is trying to bring about a new way of thinking: make / receive regular though possibly smaller donations. So simply implementing the old PayPal-ish way of one-time donations doesn't make sense to me. Just use PayPal or XX-brand in that case.

I do agree it is not up to Gittip to force people into a certain way though. Gittip's openness should imply that the receiving party, in the end, always decides how to collect the money they are entitled to. Gittip can however, and should in my opinion, have a preferred (i.e. default) mode in which it handles one-time payments. For me that would be spreading the payment out over X weeks so it is equal to (or around) the average donation to that person.

For example: if someone receives $ 500 from 5 people, the average weekly donation would be $ 100 for that receiving party. When a funder decides to make a one-time donation of $ 400, it would be spread out over 4 weeks (4 payment intervals) since that would comply with the average amount. If the receiving party (not the funder) decides, he can also request one-time donations to be payed out in full at the first available payout round.

So, Gittip could still allow one-time donations, clearly stating to the funder that the receiving party has chosen either:

• the one-time donation will be released over X weeks to the receiving party due to their set preference. or
• the one-time donation will be released in full at the next payout cycle to the receiving party due to their set preference.

We could even add a third option: "payout over X weeks until the weekly goal has been achieved, then pay out immediately" (this is my personal favorite)

My point is: it should be up to the receiving party, not the funding party.

And now I'll shut up. :smile: :wink:

[dstufft]

I think the way to implement this would be to allow one-off gifts, and then notice when the giver makes a second payment to the same receiver, and prompt them at that point with something like the following:

"You gave FooBar $20 ten weeks ago. Want to set up a $1/wk gift? [ Yes ] [ No ]"

I think this makes the most sense. I want to give people one offs and I am unlikely to give people recurring for a variety of reasons. This provides the ability to do that while still guiding users towards the type of payments you want them to make. It also provides a simple way for people to get their feet wet without commitment. Some number of those people will convert to recurring donors.

[mvdkleijn]

@dstufft Would that mean you'd not be OK with the receiver spreading out the payout of your one-time donation over X payment cycles?

Also the thought strikes me: it'd be difficult (though not impossible) to recognize a second (or third) one-time payment from someone. Assuming that people would prefer not to log in to donate one-time.

[dstufft]

@mvdkleijn I don't see any reason to spread them out. We're all adults we don't need gittip holding our hands for us. Just clearly mark it in the UX as a one time payment and be done with it. In the past i've given people "tips" through paypal because I appreciated their work and I knew they were going through a particularly tough time. However gifting through paypal sucks because a) I have to discover or ask them what their paypal address is and b) I can't do it anonymously. If it was gifted over time then I couldn't give them a bit of help anonymously.

I don't see any reason why you can't require logins to donate one time.

[mvdkleijn]

@dstufft Reason for spreading them out: regular, stable income. Yes, we're all adults... (although...) and yes we don't need Gittip to "hold our hands" but my argument is that we also don't need funders deciding for receivers how receivers want to receive the funds. :smile: But I understand your point.

I'm not saying we can't require logins, but they would make you no longer anonymous and some people don't want to make "yet another account" just to do a one-time donation which would add a block to donating. (in my view)

Perhaps this whole discussion should be short circuited with a vote with several questions?

a. Should one-time donations on Gittip be allowed? Yes / No b. Should one-time funders be forced to login to do their one-time donation? Yes / No c. Should funders or receivers decide how a one-time donation is payed out? Funders / Receivers

[dstufft]

Instead of the funder deciding for recievers how they want to receive it, you propose gittip should decide for them how they want to receieve it. If they get it in a lump sum they can budget it over multiple weeks on their own if they want. It seems to me the only hypothetical user that would be helped by a mandatory spread over multiple weeks is a user who is completely incapable of not budgeting or not spending money they have immediately.

Then again maybe I misunderstand the question, is the hypothetical spread out over some number of weeks something the actual receiver controls? Will I be able to go into my account and say "Give me all one off tips as a lump sum"?

Requiring an account has nothing to do with anonymity as far as the receiver is concerned. Gittip will be aware who sent the tip but that doesn't mean gittip needs to publish that information to the receiver.

a - Yes b - Sure, I think it's reasonable to require a login. AFAIK one is currently required anyways. c - See above clarification on your proposal.

[mvdkleijn]

@dstufft Concerning question c... In my proposal, the receiver would be able to set a preference in their profile settings. There could be three options for the receiver to set:

payout over X weeks payout in full at the next payout cycle payout over X weeks until the weekly goal you set has been achieved, anything above the goal: payout immediately / at the next payout cycle

This proposal would still allow for Gittip income to act as replacement income in the more traditional flow whilst still giving people (receiving people) the option to get a one lump sum.

As for people not being able to budget... there are (unfortunately) plenty of them out there however, my personal reasons for possibly not wanting to have lump sums payed out are:

1. Tax related
2. Clandestinely supporting Gittip by allowing them to use interest from the money they have in escrow for me
3. Using my Gittip balance to support other people without having to "top up"
4. I feel better if I get some money regularly instead of a lump sum.
5. Lump sums discourage other funders from giving (in my opinion)

I'm just saying: let me (as receiver) choose... :smile:

[dstufft]

I don't really care about that then. If receivers can decide they want my one off over a period of time then that's on them. I don't think it's generally that useful and I wouldn't personally spend engineering effort making it happen but I wouldn't be opposed to having it work that way either.

[isaacs]

No one has answered the question I raised:

Who is served by spreading out the payments? And how are they served?

It was a rhetorical question of course. But still, the answer seems clear to me: Gittip is served, and they are served by increasing their cash holdings without liability.

If a receiver wants to receive the money this way, spread out over several weeks rather than asap, then it's fine for gittip to enable this. I'd argue (with the receiver) that they're naively choosing a strictly inferior money management strategy, and show them the very simple math that proves the foolishness of their poor economic choice, but whatever. You can't fix every bad decision.

But if the funder puts the money up all at once, and the receiver would prefer to put it somewhere a bit smarter than letting it languish unproductively in their gittip account, then it is opaque and rude to hold onto it.

What if I am starting a new job next month, but have rent and bills today? Or what if I'd simply prefer not to take the 3% reduction due to inflation, and invest my money in my retirement account as soon as possible where it is going to grow?

Holding onto the money means that gittip moves from being a broker to being a bank. And, since they aren't providing access to one's funds, or interest on the holdings, they'd basically be the worst bank ever.

I'm not arguing that it's just a bad idea. I'm arguing that it's duplicitous and morally wrong. Please don't do this.

[chadwhitacre]

@cogat: [I]t seems condescending as though you think I don't know how to manage my own cash flow[.]

@balupton: The problem with it being dispersed over time is that gittip is then still in the practice of making decisions for us in a disempowering way under the illusion it knows what is best for us, it should be the user who knows best with the user in control of their finances, not gittip.

@isaacs: Historically, adults have proven eminently capable of figuring out what to do with sporadic revenue flows.

@mvdkleijn: I do agree it is not up to Gittip to force people into a certain way though.

@dstufft: We're all adults we don't need gittip holding our hands for us.

... but ...

@mvdkleijn Sporadic revenue flows cause people to increase the size of their savings (if the even can afford to) causing them to be less able to afford items and services for them and their families. [...]

The recessions showed us clearly each time that instability and uncertainty concerning their incomes cause people to sit on their money. Consumers sitting on their money means they don't spend it, causing a downwards economic spiral since businesses can't afford to keep people employed with decreasing turnovers.

@dstufft It seems to me the only hypothetical user that would be helped by a mandatory spread over multiple weeks is a user who is completely incapable of budgeting or not spending money they have immediately.

This is a goddam fascinating design challenge, in my opinion. Viewed solely from the individual's point of view, yes: I'm an adult, give me my money, how dare you suggest otherwise. But on the other hand, it is not obviously false that the average person isn't more or less incapable of budgeting. From an overall system point of view, mandating a 10-week buffer for one-time gifts may very well save a scaled-up Gittip from a crisis: even if everyone turned off all gifts on the same day, there would still be 10 weeks of reserve flowing through the system. It will be easier to institute such a policy now than when we're moving orders of magnitude more money through Gittip.

[chadwhitacre]

Gittip is served, and they are served by increasing their cash holdings without liability.

"They" is us. If you don't believe that, then please don't use Gittip. :-)

And, since they aren't providing access to one's funds, or interest on the holdings, they'd basically be the worst bank ever.

We have tickets open for getting a banking license (#938) and investing escrowed money (#279).

[chadwhitacre]

@isaacs To answer your question directly: Gittip as a whole may be served by having a 10-week reserve as insurance against a "run on the bank."

[chadwhitacre]

@isaacs And the individuals participating in Gittip would be served by Gittip as a whole being resilient to runs on the bank.

[isaacs]

A "run on the bank" is only a problem if gittip is maintaining a smaller cash holding than their outstanding liability. You withdraw the money from the funder, now, all at once. You then pay the receiver, now, all at once.

Can you please explain what you mean by that phrase, in this context? I'm not understanding it.

[dstufft]

So the hypothetical situation is that suddenly a critical mass of people decide they no longer wish to use gittip and somehow in 10 weeks you're going to convince them to come back and you're going to coast on the 10 weeks of reserve funding to do so? I'm skeptical of this situation both of that kind of mass exodus occurring and that if one did occur that gittip would be able to regain within 10 weeks solely on the back of extending one off payments which to be the case would also require one off payments to be the primary revenue stream for people.

To be honest gittip holding large quantities of money in escrow puts individuals at risk because in the advent gittip collapses gittip is not insured. This also exists on the weekly payouts but in a typically much smaller increment since I'd assume that most people are withdrawing or regifting money and are not letting large amounts simply idle in gittip. However that large sum that gittip would have taken from me is being held outside of my reach in a way that is not insured against loss so it's entirely possible that this money gets lost.

[chadwhitacre]

Zooming out for a second ...

As Gittip grows, we're going to be put more and more in the position of planning an economy. Central economic planning is famously controversial. I have everything to learn in this area, but on the face of it I don't accept that the individual is best served by a complete absence of central planning on Gittip's part.

Two points:

1. We're discussing this openly in a GitHub thread (even though I don't at this point expect to put it to a vote). That's new and interesting. It's not how economies are usually planned.
2. Whatever we decide, here and in the future, any of you are free to fork Gittip if you think we've gone too far off the rails.

[cakey]

One off payments are desirable, if only to keep people on the gittip platform without forcing them elsewhere. I also strongly believe that one off payments should be distributed directly - people can manage their own money. We can help users in the area of stability through a UI that clearly explains their sources of income. You could display one offs as a weekly average over a year, but money should be given directly.

However, it is a question of emphasis. Gittip is about sustainability and no strings attached. These can be tackled in the UI, by applying the same anonymity, and emphasising sustainability by showing aggregate values, and encouraging one off tips to turn into regular tips by developing relationships between givers and receivers.

Ultimately gittip's volume is miniscule right now. Central economic planning seems premature. (And regardless, there are surely better ways of preventing a crash than delaying income.)

[chadwhitacre]

@isaacs Easy answers first:

Are you currently skimming off the top on the assumption that growth is always positive?

No.

Banks get away with this because they can create new money, and they're highly regulated. Is gittip a bank?

No.

[isaacs]

Deleted previous comment. I just scrolled up and read your explanation, sorry, github did not email it to me for some raisons.

From an overall system point of view, mandating a 10-week buffer for one-time gifts may very well save a scaled-up Gittip from a crisis: even if everyone turned off all gifts on the same day, there would still be 10 weeks of reserve flowing through the system. It will be easier to institute such a policy now than when we're moving orders of magnitude more money through Gittip.

So, basically, your answer is that yes, the goal of gittip is to be a bank, even though it is not currently, and yes, gittip will be investing cash holdings and operating with a smaller cash holding than their current liability. (Where do the profits of said investments go? Who eats the losses? Will you be FDIC insured?)

If everyone turns off gifts all at once, isn't that still just as much a problem? Ie, if I say, "Ok, you don't allow one-time gifts, so I'm going to give $X to soandso, and next week, come and turn it off". You still have peaks and valleys. You still have variable flow. Spreading those one-time payments is paternalistic, opaque, and doesn't solve the problem you're claiming it does.

And, since gittip will offer a 0% interest rate, explain to me how this is not just a much worse checking account?

Anyway, I feel like I've said all that I have to say, and it's up to you. This decision makes me trust gittip a lot less.

[isaacs]

@mvdkleijn

As for people not being able to budget... there are (unfortunately) plenty of them out there however, my personal reasons for possibly not wanting to have lump sums payed out are:

Personally, I prefer for my payment broker to not try to be my daddy. If you're holding money in escrow in order to invest it and pay the maintainers, fine. Say that. Don't pretend its for my benefit as a receiver, because I can pretty well guarantee I get more benefit from having the money than from not-having the money.

1. Tax related

If it all gets paid in the same calendar year, then it doesn't matter (at least, in the US). Also, there are many better ways to avoid taxes.

1. Clandestinely supporting Gittip by allowing them to use interest from the money they have in escrow for me

So, you're basically making a charitable donation, but to a for-profit organization, without the tax benefits of doing so?

1. Using my Gittip balance to support other people without having to "top up"

I don't see how "putting all the money in your gittip balance at once" has any effect on that. It'll still support other people, and you can put as much money in as you want. (In fact, by flowing the money through your bank account, then to your credit card, you get 1-3% cash back, as well as other potential benefits, depending on your credit card company.)

1. I feel better if I get some money regularly instead of a lump sum.

There are other ways to attain good feelings. Put the money in a brokerage account or something.

1. Lump sums discourage other funders from giving (in my opinion)

I'm curious about why you think this is. Can you elaborate?

I'm just saying: let me (as receiver) choose... :smile:

Yes, we definitely agree there.