Support donation-per-work

[jelv]

Some creators and backers prefer donation-per-work with an maximum cap for each month like Patreon uses.

Because some months I focus on other things and finish less work, and other months I am in a financially tight spot but have lots of time. Also, some of my patrons would rather reward me for work I finish than just pay a flat rate. I tried self-rolled, monthly subscriptions ages ago and nobody signed up. Patreon offered pay-per-work and people do sign up for that. At the moment, I have a stable income through Patreon by composing something every month, and extra income if I need it by composing two or three things that month, without having to do extra sales and marketing work. (And patrons can cap their monthly pledge amount, so I know I won't bankrupt them.) Related discussion: https://mastodon.xyz/@artsyhonker/99139225711681045

[artsyhonker]

It's worth pointing out that most of my patrons are non-techies, not always familiar with copyright law and the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike licenses that I use, and indeed not always that comfortable with online payments in the first place. But they want to support my work, because they agree that it's a good thing that I put my sheet music online in a form that makes it available for anyone to use.

[Changaco]

This is doable. It's not exactly in the original spirit of Liberapay but it's not against it either, and it doesn't conflict with our current mission or terms of service.

I think the simplest way to implement this is to add a toggle that a creator would switch in their profile settings and which would change the donation form from the normal "periodic" mode to a "per-creation" mode. Any existing regular donation would not be converted automatically to a per-creation one, because the two modes are too different.

Technical thoughts on the DB changes:

• add a custom value to the donation_period type
• add a new value to the transfer_context type as well so we can easily differentiate per-creation donations from regular ones
• create a profile_period column in the participants table (separate from the default_period column envisioned in #837)

[forteller]

add a toggle that a creator would switch in their profile settings and which would change the donation form from the normal "periodic" mode to a "per-creation"

Why shouldn't the creators be able to let the donors chose which one they want to use (or maybe even use both?), if they want?

That is: Instead of just either one or the other, why not let the creator choose between:

• periodic
• per-creation
• periodic or per-creation
• (periodic and/or per-creation)

[Changaco]

Because I said "the simplest way", and more possibilities = greater complexity.

[remram44]

@Changaco don't forget to add some limit to prevent a creator from clicking the "content created" button 100 times in one day 😉

[artsyhonker]

Absolutely: this is why Patreon lets donors specify a monthly cap on pledges to each creator.

On 8 Dec 2017 9:27 pm, "Remi Rampin" notifications@github.com wrote:

@chancago don't forget to add some limit to prevent a creator from clicking the "content created" button 100 times in one day 😉

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/liberapay/liberapay.com/issues/839#issuecomment-350376341, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AgyPpQG9ZGdvT6MxEbRlkh0hOdkJoDoIks5s-anSgaJpZM4Q7RZH .

[LeifSimmons]

This may seem like a good idea, but it really opens up a can of worms which you may, or may not, be aware of.

Currently Librapay handles donations, as in, the pledges are always gifts with no strings attached. This is obvious from the way Librapay is set up today.

If per-work pledges are implemented then you start heading towards "sales-land" where pledges ceases to be gifts, but rather constitutes payment for services or goods. If this is implemented then it becomes less obvious that pledges are gifts. It is not certain that the border to "sales-land" will be crossed, but if/when it is, then someone (as in either Librapay, or the recipient of the money) will have to deal with VAT issues.

The point I am trying to make here is that legal and tax implications, both for Librapay and the recipient of the money, should be carefully considered before implementing this.

[Changaco]

I understand perfectly what you mean @LeifSimmons, I originally had a similar thought, but the fact that the transfer is triggered by the recipient instead of being automatic on a regular schedule doesn't change the nature of the transaction. It's still a pure donation as long as there is no reward of any kind.

[remram44]

If per-work pledges are implemented then you start heading towards "sales-land" where pledges ceases to be gifts, but rather constitutes payment for services or goods. If this is implemented then it becomes less obvious that pledges are gifts.

As long as there is no way for the content-creator to know who gave, you are pretty far away from sales. Nowhere near where Patreon stands.

The issue here is that Liberapay does not let you donate money, but only set up recurring payments that support a creator over time. Most content creators on Liberapay are not full-time, and that is a reality we must accept. They might share their time between multiple projects, or more realistically between a full-time job and the project you are rewarding them for.

For most projects, especially those that are side-projects, time is a very arbitrary measure of work, probably completely disconnected with the work-hours that people will put in it. I think it is fine for creators to be more involved in a particular project some weeks and less some other weeks, and having the system be able to handle that is really helpful. You are still not paying them for a product, but rewarding them for when they choose to spend time on that particular endeavor. It allows creators to have more freedom about their time management, without feeling that they are "on the clock" and need to put in their hours every week.

[LeifSimmons]

First of all, I'm not a lawyer, nor a legal expert, so what I write below represents my amateur opinion of the issues at hand:

@Changaco I agree that the trigger mechanism does not come into consideration when determining if something is a gift or not. However, the very nature of this feature is to pay someone for some work unit. This means that there is a clear connection between the transfer of funds and the work performed. In other words, there are now strings attached to the pledge; "I will give you money when you have done this work". Afaik, this could be considered payment for goods or services.

Update: "if you do this work, then I will give you money" in the section above was a poor choice of words, I have substituted it with "I will give you money when you have done this work"

For instance, if someone receives a sum of money for each song he/she composes, then the money is clearly awarded because of the work performed. If the song is only shared with patrons, or if patrons get early access, then the money is likely considered to be payment for the song, or the service of early access. If the song instead is shared with the public at large, then I guess that the money would be considered a donation (though, it could perhaps be considered salary or payment for a service).

@remram44

The issue here is that Liberapay does not let you donate money, but only set up recurring payments that support a creator over time.

I understand the issue and what you mean, but please do not use the word "payment" when you mean a donation or a gift. The term "payment" implies that the transfer of funds is neither a donation nor a gift.

As long as there is no way for the content-creator to know who gave, you are pretty far away from sales. Nowhere near where Patreon stands.

Are you sure about this? If the transaction is deemed to be payment for some service or digital merchandise, does not knowing who payed negate the requirement to declare and pay VAT? I do not believe this to be true. Instead it might put a requirement on Librepay to provide the information needed to allow the recipient to declare and pay VAT.

@Changaco & @remram44 Look, I do believe that this would be a nice feature and I don't mean to sound negative. My point is just that it is probably a good idea to seek some legal advice before designing and implementing this feature in order to ensure that there are no unwanted legal side-effects or unpleasant surprises down the road.

[remram44]

@LeifSimmons: You are saying this as if we could pretend that right now, the donation has nothing to do with work performed. This is not the case. The fact that you ccreate a "team" for a specific project make it obvious that you are rewarding people for work done on that project, and not because you like them as persons. The fact that you set up recurring payment is also a clear indicator of this: you are not giving a donation for work done so far, but obviously supporting future development you expect to see.

I think asking for legal advice is a good idea, but I don't think this specific feature changes things dramatically or gets us over any kind of line.

[artsyhonker]

I agree that the trigger mechanism does not come into consideration when determining if something is a gift or not. However, the very nature of this feature is to pay someone for some work unit. This means that there is a clear connection between the transfer of funds and the work performed. In other words, there are now strings attached to the pledge; "if you do this work, then I will give you money". Afaik, this could be considered payment for goods or services.

I see what you mean, but I'm not sure I can identify a good or service that patrons (sponsors?) are allegedly purchasing.

For instance, if someone receives a sum of money for each song he/she composes, then the money is clearly awarded because of the work performed.

Not really. It's awarded because the work is made public, not because the work has been done; and I'm going to put the music online whether people fund it or not, so people who donate aren't getting anything that they wouldn't get if they didn't donate. There isn't anything to purchase, and I'm not providing any kind of service that is particularly for the donors; just a contribution to the public good in the form of cultural material that is commons-licensed. (In an ideal world it would be possble to integrate this with, say, the Choral Public Domain Library such that when I contribute a new work there it automagically puts funds aside here, but I imagine that is more trouble than it is worth.)

I wonder whether the concept of a stipend is helpful here. As I understand it, this is usually a fee paid to someone, not for work that can be measured in tasks under a contract, but so that they are free to carry out a particular role or set of duties without having to labour for their subsistence at the same time.

So maybe another way of thinking about what I'm looking for would be a flexible stipend, such that in periods of time when I am spending a lot of time acting for a certain sort of public good, the opportunity cost problem doesn't leave me completely skint. (That is: the time I spend composing CC by-SA choral music is time I don't spend doing work that it's easier for me to get paid for, and I still need to eat whether I'm composing or not.)

This is, admittedly, the opposite of the way I approach it in practice, which is more along the lines of "When other paying work is thin on the ground, I want to be able to make up the gaps by composing more; and when I'm really busy with other projects, I don't want to feel guilty about not composing if people are donating money to me every month."

I will say that a pay-per-work model does give me an incentive to write shorter pieces of music than I might otherwise. I have yet to decide whether I consider this a feature.

If the song is only shared with patrons, or if patrons get early access, then the money is likely considered to be payment for the song, or the service of early access.

I definitely do not want to do this. Much of the point of releasing my music under CC by-SA is that it is available to people whether or not they can pay for it.

I really dislike walled gardens, and paywalls in general, and I do not think it is a good idea for Liberapay to implement anything that allows patrons early or exclusive access, both because that definitely leads into VAT-land, and because it's counter-productive on broader cultural levels.

[remram44]

I will say that a pay-per-work model does give me an incentive to write shorter pieces of music than I might otherwise. I have yet to decide whether I consider this a feature.

It is still possible for the creator to get lazy. But that is the case whether he gets a monthly payment and doesn't work, or releases shorter works (or of worse quality). The user can always change their monthly amount as that happen. The only difference with this feature in place is that the donors don't have to change that amount every few weeks in response to the time the creator chooses to put in the project, and therefore don't put pressure on the creator to work every week to deserve the money they are given. I say it is much more friendly to side-projects that someone wants to work on some of the time, while not making much else worse (or better).

[artsyhonker]

@remram44: It turns out there aren't that many good choral miniaturists out there, and occasionally going "hmm, I'm skint, and it's nearly the end of the month and I haven't finished anything, what can I finish in the next 48 hours?" has forced me to develop a certain clarity and brevity in my composing which is entirely lacking in my writing of words. Some of my best works are very short indeed; but I wouldn't necessarily say that they are lower-quality. (Oh, this is kindof off-topic, is there a way to indicate that? Sorry, very new to all this.)

[remram44]

(People might release shortened works or works of lower quality to get more payments, I'm not trying to imply that short works are of low quality)

[artsyhonker]

@remram44: understood, and I didn't think you were trying to imply that, I'm just rather rambly...

[LeifSimmons]

Again, I'm not a lawyer, nor a legal expert, so what I write below represents my amateur opinion of the issues at hand:

@remram44:

You are saying this as if we could pretend that right now, the donation has nothing to do with work performed.

No that is not what I meant. My understanding is that donations are typically used to further some cause or some project as you described, so there definitely is a connection between the donation and the work.

However, donations are given without return consideration. That is, as a donor I can not expect to get anything in return and I do believe that it also means that there are no promises from the recipient to actually accomplish anything. E.g. if I donate some money towards a new hospital, then I can not expect to get anything in return and I can not expect that a new hospital actually will be be built. I can only expect that the money I donated will be used to attempt to build a new hospital.

The fact that you set up recurring payment is also a clear indicator of this: you are not giving a donation for work done so far, but obviously supporting future development you expect to see.

I believe it is usually sort of implied that a donation is intended to fund future work to further some cause or project. The thing with donate-per-work is that you donate once the work has been completed. This means that there is an additional condition attached to the donation, not only must the money fund the project, the project must also be completed before the donation is made. I am uncertain if this fact actually changes anything when determining if something is a donation or not, but I wouldn't bet against it.

I think asking for legal advice is a good idea, but I don't think this specific feature changes things dramatically or gets us over any kind of line.

I would tend to agree as long as the work becomes public and the patrons don't get anything in return (nor any special consideration). Though, I believe that it would be good to get confirmation that donate-per-work will not be considered as a payment, or under which circumstances it could be considered as such.

However, combine this feature with a way to list patrons (which I understand is a planned feature) and you have a foundation for abuse (ie Librepay could be used for payments rather than gifts).

[remram44]

However, donations are given without return consideration. That is, as a donor I can not expect to get anything in return and I do believe that it also means that there are no promises from the recipient to actually accomplish anything.

I understand that view completely, however consider that if the project stopped moving, or if the recipient stepped down, people would cancel their recurring donations. So while those donations are not tied automatically to some objective amount of work (publication, blog post, commit, merged PR), it is still tied to work by the subjective appreciation of the donors. I think everyone using Liberapay understands that they are funding somebody for doing something, and although they cannot expect the work to happen in exchange for the money, the work happening is necessary for their continued donation.

If you think the "implied" nature of that expected work is enough to fool lawyers and get us to the right side of some kind of line, this is not my point of view. I think it is obvious to a court how this work, as it is to patrons and creators. The feature discussed here, allowing donations to be tied to completely arbitrary pieces of "work" instead of the passage of time, doesn't in my view make any meaningful difference, legally. It just makes it easier for everyone to deal with variable activity, by having the system adjust in some way (however imprecise) to periods of different activity, instead of patrons re-evaluating their pledges.

[LeifSimmons]

The fact that you set up recurring payment is also a clear indicator of this: you are not giving a donation for work done so far, but obviously supporting future development you expect to see.

I believe it is usually sort of implied that a donation is intended to fund future work to further some cause or project.

What I meat here is that I believe that most of us tends to think of a donation as a gift to cover work that will be performed in the future, that is, you donate first and then the recipient can afford to work on something. I believe this is the case regardless if it is a one shot donation or a recurring donation.

I just wanted to highlight that this is very much in contrast to how the donate-per-work feature works, where the donation is made when the work has already been done.

[mattbk]

I agree with @LeifSimmons and hope that Liberapay can stay the course (and help sway people toward an open model) rather than trying to become a Patreon clone.

Looking at how much VC money Patreon has received, it shouldn't be hard for some other VC-backed group to build the Patreon clone everyone seems to want. Liberapay can't compete with that amount of money, and shouldn't have to--it's a different model entirely.

I think the main issue artistic people have with Liberapay after being on Patreon is the concept of releasing products into the world, rather than "selling" it to the highest-paying patrons. The Patreon model is not the only one in town, and the Gratipay/Liberapay model seeks to challenge that concept.

[jelv]

I agree with the sentiment that we don't need to be an Patreon clone. However I dont think that is the case. Setting an donation timer on an released work cycle instead of an time period is fine. It think this keeps the donations without VAT but does gives the right incentive for the creators and donators like artsyhonker said.

What I'm not that sure about is when anonymous donation is changed creators could in theory start rewarding donators. At there own initiative. Is that something we should block (for the VAT?) or is it just a byproduct of the platform that we cannot stop?

[artsyhonker]

@mattbk: Speaking personally, I have no issue whatsoever with "releasing products into the world", I've been doing that since before Patreon existed, despite there not being a strong subculture of this in choral music the way there is in tech.

A Patreon clone would have a paywall. I'm not interested in a paywall. I want to be able to frob a button that says I made a commons contribution and be paid at that stage (or in the next cycle) rather than at a flat rate. That's all. I don't want to use the site to build relationships with fans/donors. I don't want a donor-only feed. I don't even care that much if the site notifies the donors that I've done something, though I guess some donors might like to know.

I don't use Patreon because it has all that cruft. I actively dislike it. It's a terrible fit for what I'm trying to do.

I use Patreon because if I want to work intermittently and only receive donations when I do work, Patreon is pretty much the only game in town, and it certainly was when I started using it 4 years ago.

Legal advice would probably be good, both for this specifically and in general, but let's make sure the legal advice is about what's being asked for, not something entirely different.

[mattbk]

@artsyhonker thanks for clarifying! I should have read the thread more closely. I like your use case.

[artsyhonker]

Thinking about it some more: if the site automatically notifies donors when I've done something, then it could be that that is an automatic electronic service that is being paid for and (I believe) subject to VAT.

But: there are loads of notifications that are absolutely free, and so clearly not VAT-able.

I wonder if one way to have (opt-in only) notifications for donors would be to allow any user to "follow" any other user, whether they donate to them or not. Then it's clearer that any notifications are not a service that is being paid for.

Another way, of course, would be for donors not to receive any notifications through Liberapay, and leave it up to them to follow users on other platforms if they want to, or not if they don't.

(As an aside, I really like the anonymity aspect.)

@mattbk: glad it's clear now.

[remram44]

Thinking about it some more: if the site automatically notifies donors when I've done something, then it could be that that is an automatic electronic service that is being paid for and (I believe) subject to VAT.

Only if you were paying the person providing the service, which you are not. None of that money goes to Liberapay. I assume Patreon has to pay VAT on their cut (Liberapay doesn't take a cut).

I agree that there is going to be a need for Liberapay to notify patrons when something has been released (because that means that they are being charged). I am not sure what the content of those notifications should be, since if you let the creator customize it, you open the door for private links/codes to be exchanged. But a "thing happened" notification with no way to get to the "thing" is equally awkward. Making those a public feed that anyone can view and subscribe to is a good model in my view.

[LeifSimmons]

Only if you were paying the person providing the service, which you are not. None of that money goes to Liberapay. I assume Patreon has to pay VAT on their cut (Liberapay doesn't take a cut).

Somewhat OT, but very briefly; No Patreon has to ensure that VAT is charged to the consumer for the complete "product" and are also responsible to declare and pay VAT (that is, when the consumer resides within the European Union). I can provide links with more information if you wish, but it is a quite a lot of stuff to go through and try to make sense of.

I am not sure what the content of those notifications should be, since if you let the creator customize it, you open the door for private links/codes to be exchanged.

Agreed, but on the flip side, if I'm donating, for instance per song published, then I would want to know wish song was published. Partially because I should have the possibility to check if the charge/claim is fraudulent and partially because I probably would like to hear it. It seems quite tricky to accomplish this without allowing the creator to customize the notification.

[artsyhonker]

@liefSimmons: OT, but: you can't usually hear it anyway, except for a robot mp3 simulation, because what I actually publish is a pdf of the sheet music.

What counts as fraudulent in this context, though? In the per-unit-of-time model, how do donors decide

[artsyhonker]

Bother, pressed wrong button, will continue.

In the donation-per-unit-of-time model, how do donors decide someone is making "enough" contribution to be "worth" sponsoring? Is there a point at which we can say someone is fraudulent, or do they just end up having no patrons if there's no evidence of them doing much? And if that's the model that applies to pay-per-unit-of-time, why have a different system for pay-per-work?

Some of my pieces take an afternoon to compose, some take hundreds of hours. It's really difficult to point to one and say it's a bigger contribution to a cultural commons than another is.

Realistically I expect my patrons would mostly be people who already know and like my work. If a prospective patron wants to know how to follow my work, my profile page has links to my page on the Choral Public Domain Library, and to my website (which is

[artsyhonker]

Argh wrong button AGAIN, I really cannot type.

As I was saying, my profile page already contains links to where people can follow my work: the CPDL page with compositions I have contributed there, my blog where I post about new compositions, my YouTube channel where the occasional demo recording goes. I'm making the work public and telling people about it already.

I think the main reason for having some kind of notification is that people don't usually like financial surprises, and so there needs to be a way for them to see it if I suddenly become prolific and publish 7 works in a month (unlikely, but possible). But being able to cap their donations removes the worst of the risk, there.

[mattbk]

In the donation-per-unit-of-time model, how do donors decide someone is making "enough" contribution to be "worth" sponsoring?

It depends on the donor. I have software that I use every day and contribute to, and I contribute to webcomics that make me smile when I see them, which may be at irregular intervals. Others may have different opinions on what makes it "worth it."

I think what makes this type of funding different is that Liberapay really can be for micropayments--so in theory it's not so much "how can I give my patrons $1 worth of content every week?" it's "how can I give 10x that number of patrons $0.10 worth of content every week?" And if $0.10/week is set and money is in the donor's wallet, it's really easy for someone to say "oh well, maybe @artsyhonker is having a busy week, I'll just let this slide because she generally does good stuff."

Is there a point at which we can say someone is fraudulent, or do they just end up having no patrons if there's no evidence of them doing much? And if that's the model that applies to pay-per-unit-of-time, why have a different system for pay-per-work?

I was thinking about this earlier, and I think the answer really is just that people will decide not to fund fraudulent accounts. If a donor has enough issue with your work that they decide not to donate (or to reduce their donations), hopefully they reach out in some other way. Some sort of "approve this charge" request that needs to be approved by 51% of donors (for example) would be a way around this, but then you could still have freeloaders on the giving side of things (who might just decide not to pay).

Ideally, someone doing good work would have several hundred or thousand microdonations per unit of time, all funded at different intervals. This would smooth out variations due to all of a) accidently running out of money in wallets, b) stopping/lowering donations because value isn't seen, and c) stopping/lowering donations because of financial issues on the part of the donors. At this point, however, those several hundred microdonors aren't there.

[artsyhonker]

And if $0.10/week is set and money is in the donor's wallet, it's really easy for someone to say "oh well, maybe @artsyhonker is having a busy week, I'll just let this slide because she generally does good stuff."

The thing is, probably three weeks out of four I won't finish anything even if I'm working fairly steadily; and my process is such that there isn't really anything to show for a work until it's finished. So a weekly system means that most of the time patrons are going to be sponsoring me for no apparent progress, and if they then happen to miss whatever I publish in the fourth week, because there are no notifications on Liberapay for ongoing work anyway (unless I'm mistaken), there's a real risk they'll think I'm not doing anything at all. If they only pay when I say I've finished something then at least there are no false negatives.

[LeifSimmons]

@artsyhonker: Perhaps I can't hear your songs, but there would surely be other creators whish could publish songs as a playable audio file.

As for fraudulent in this context; look at it from the patrons view, if I donate per song and the notification does not allow me to know which song, then the creator could in principle just claim to have published a song without having done it.

As for donation-per-unit-of-time, I don't really see recurring donations as donation per unit of time worked, but rather as donating money on a regular basis to allow the creator to work on something worthwhile. I guess that if the creator becomes inactive, then I would at some point stop donating, but usually there is communication between creators and patrons, so I have not seen this as a problem (maybe anonymity is not always a good thing).

"Single-shot" and recurring donations are given without return consideration and there is no explicit, or implied, promise from the recipient to actually accomplish anything. The only expectation is that the funds are used to further the cause they were given for, so fraudulent in this case would for example be if funds donated for a new hospital were used to build something else.

The donate-per-work model adds a condition; "you get money when the work is done". As I see it, when the creator triggers the payment, then that is a promise, or claim, that the work has been done. If the work has not been done, then that would be fraudulent.

[artsyhonker]

I've realised another potential issue with pay-per-work, though; or maybe it isn't an issue at all.

If someone is on a team and gets regular periodic income for contributions there, but as an individual they opt for pay-per-work, does anything break?

(I have at least one non-composing project that would probably work well as a team thing, later down the line.)

Also if someone has weekly patrons but then switched to pay-per-work, what happens to future donations from those patrons? Are they prompted to review their donation and switch? Can they donate on a pay-per-week basis anyway?

[remram44]

@artsyhonker: I definitely don't think that this pay-per-work model works for everyone, and not every creator should be forced into it. I'm just arguing here that it's better for some people. It should also be set globally for a team/project.

[artsyhonker]

@LiefSimmons:

As for fraudulent in this context; look at it from the patrons view, if I donate per song and the notification does not allow me to know which song, then the creator could in principle just claim to have published a song without having done it.

But patrons can, if they wish, check whether I've actually made a work public online. They don't need a notification of exactly what it is to be able to do that, because my profile already contains links to the places that I make such works public.

I mean, yeah, I guess if I was publishing music under CC by-SA on paper, but not putting it online, there would be no way to verify things. If I were using a pseudonym that I don't use anywhere else, and not linking to where I publish my work in my profile, then verification would be difficult. But I can't see either of those cases getting me many patrons in the first place.

Meanwhile, I have an e-mail newsletter and a blog and several social media accounts, and I imagine most of my patrons would follow me on one or more of those. If there are creator-customisable notifications (rather than just "looks like @artsyhonker made a thing"), they need to be opt-out so that people aren't getting the same link e-mailed to them multiple times.

[mattbk]

if they then happen to miss whatever I publish in the fourth week, because there are no notifications on Liberapay for ongoing work anyway (unless I'm mistaken),

An update feed is a planned feature: https://github.com/liberapay/liberapay.com/issues/41. I think this will ease the minds of a lot of people coming from a Patreon background.

[artsyhonker]

@remram44: oh, certainly it wouldn't work for everyone. It might not even always be the best option for me, though right now it would suit me down to the ground.

[artsyhonker]

@mattbk: Ah, that sounds a bit like what I suggested earlier:

I wonder if one way to have (opt-in only) notifications for donors would be to allow any user to "follow" any other user, whether they donate to them or not. Then it's clearer that any notifications are not a service that is being paid for.

(I like the "if the follower isn't a patron of the follower, include a donation link" part.)

[Changaco]

It just occurred to me that the donation-per-work model can't be implemented straightforwardly because of payment processing fees. Unless the amount of a per-work donation is sufficiently high (e.g. €10) charging the donor for every new creation would result in a high percentage of fees.

Grouping multiple per-work donations to different creators can help, but because of payment processor limitations this isn't always possible even if the donor does support multiple creators who are active in the same month (a condition that isn't very likely in itself).

In the past donors could have put larger amounts of money into their wallets in advance, then Liberapay would have transferred that money to the recipient's wallet over time, but now that we can no longer hold funds in escrow we may have to wait until the donor has accumulated a sufficiently large debt before processing a payment. Obviously this potentially long delay in receiving the money could be inconvenient for the creator.

[Changaco]

Note: ideally the implementation of this feature should support two distinct uses. The first one is to trigger the payments when the work has been done and is published. The second is to trigger the payments once a sufficient amount of money has been pledged to start work on a new creation or improvement.