7 ms·

>> and will keep the funds otherwise. If I'm possibly going to give my money away, why would I want to do this to some random contract, instead maybe a Charity

>> and will keep the funds otherwise. If I'm possibly going to give my money away, why would I want to do this to some random contract, instead maybe a Charity or somewhere other than directly to the contract?

supermdguy 9y ago
It is kind of awkward that a business that exists to help you get things done is paid whenever you fail.
- falcolas 9y ago
  This is effectively the business model of every health club out there. They lock you into a 1 year contract, knowing most people will not continue past the first or second month.
  - dpatrick86 9y ago
    In that case, the only incentive they have for you to fail is to pack more gym memberships in the same square footage. Still, I think as a perverse incentive it's a lot more indirect.
    - mrisoli 9y ago
      Exactly, while they can benefit from having fewer people go regularly to offer a better experience to those who do, churn is still a gym's biggest problem, it's why they lock up longer contracts and why gyms have trainers available and regular progress reports, to enhance customer LTV.
- jstanley 9y ago
  That's also the business model of most dating websites.
- kbutler 9y ago
  Doctors and pharmaceutical companies are supposed to help you be healthy, but make more if you're ill long-term. Banks, credit card companies, and brokerages all make more money if you make poor financial decisions (fees, interest, and active trading, respectively). Auto mechanics and car companies make money if your car doesn't work or doesn't last past the warranty period. Even piano teachers only make money if you continue needing lessons, rather than becoming able to learn on your own. Hopefully enlightened businesses will follow the model that customer referrals are more scalable than bleeding the money out of any one individual.
  - dumbfounder 9y ago
    You aren't making a case for, you are making cases against all these other industries.
  - nck4222 9y ago
    >Doctors and pharmaceutical companies are supposed to help you be healthy, but make more if you're ill long-term. Which results in unnecessary procedures, and unnecessary prescriptions. >Banks, credit card companies, and brokerages all make more money if you make poor financial decisions Which caused the housing crisis and great recession. >Auto mechanics and car companies make money if your car doesn't work or doesn't last past the warranty period. Which results in some of the most untrustworthy salespeople in one of the most untrustworthy industries. All of those industries are regulated by the government, precisely because the incentives are wrong and it causes people to do more harm than good if left unregulated.
    - wuliwong 9y ago
      I was able to find a trustworthy mechanic. If they did a poor job or were sabotaging my car when I brought it to them, I would choose another mechanic.
      - nck4222 9y ago
        My point is those fields need extra regulations because there are incentives that promote unethical behavior, and thus shouldn't be used as examples of why this websites incentives are good business practices. Not that there's no such thing as a trustworthy mechanic.
- iamwil 9y ago
  But in this instance, that's the incentive. You want that money back, rather than going to someone else.
underyx 9y ago
It's easier to slack off on your goals if it feels like a noble thing to do.
- Klathmon 9y ago
  Couldn't the smart contract literally "burn" the funds in case of failure? Like transfer a small percentage to the owner as a fee for the service, then send the rest to a faulty address or contract setup to never be retrievable?
  - detaro 9y ago
    yes. or maybe even distribute it among those that managed to reach their goals.
    - kbutler 9y ago
      Goal: "Set a goal that makes me eligible to receive a portion of the rewards". Done!
      - detaro 9y ago
        Even more reason to not fail your goal and give money to "stupid freeloaders" :P
    - dumbfounder 9y ago
      Then people might try to game the system. I think you present the excess to one person each day that receives votes as the best (public) goal matched. It incentivizes people to publicize their goals, which helps the business, and also makes them more likely to fulfill the goal. You will still see gaming I'm sure, but at least it will be vetted by peers.
    - Klathmon 9y ago
      In a way "burning" the funds already does distribute them to everyone else. Since that is now money that is forcibly and irrevocably taken out of circulation, so therefore everyone else's money is worth slightly more because of it!
berberous 9y ago
+1. I'd be fine giving the site a percentage as a cut, but would want to be able to designate an address for the primary portion of the funds.
mgberlin 9y ago
If you really want it to motivate, the funds should be sent to some group you detest if you fail. I.e. the DNC for a staunch republican, or the NRA for someone who believes in gun control.
- dreeves 9y ago
  Our (Beeminder's) counterargument: https://blog.beeminder.com/anticharity/ https://blog.beeminder.com/anticharity/ Excerpt: Take my thoughts on this with a huge grain of salt, given my conflict of interest, but I really dislike commitment devices that destroy things — either information or other forms of value. StickK’s anti-charities seem the most egregious, actively harming the world. I’m certainly motivated to not allow the world to become a worse place, so it’s not that it would be ineffective as a commitment contract. Just that I’m also motivated to prevent things that don’t make the world worse in any way, like paying money to a third party (who’s not evil).
  - gnicholas 9y ago
    > StickK’s anti-charities seem the most egregious, actively harming the world. That assumes that (1) there are "good" charities and "bad" charities, and (2) that most of Stickk's users are good people who end up benefiting "bad" charities when they fail. Point (1) seems hard to prove and point (2) is impossible to prove without detailed info about how Stickk is used. It seems like you're in this market, so perhaps you have data like this. Do you? If not, how do you justify the above assertion?
    - dreeves 9y ago
      Good points, but I don't think we need assumptions that strong. For example, if democrats donate to the republican party as an anti-charity and republicans donate an equal total to the democratic party, then probably democrats and republicans would all agree that that's strictly worse than nobody donating at all. But more to the point, I'm just viewing it from the individual user's perspective. From your point of view, you're actively harming the world by donating to an anti-charity. It doesn't matter that those other wrong-on-the-internet people think your donation is doing good. :)
dominotw 9y ago
> instead maybe a Charity Money going to charity won't make me feel that bad about not achieving my goal. "oh well atleast someone needy is getting the money" Defeats the whole point of the exercise( pardon the pun).

supermdguy 9y ago

It is kind of awkward that a business that exists to help you get things done is paid whenever you fail.

falcolas 9y ago
This is effectively the business model of every health club out there. They lock you into a 1 year contract, knowing most people will not continue past the first or second month.
- dpatrick86 9y ago
  In that case, the only incentive they have for you to fail is to pack more gym memberships in the same square footage. Still, I think as a perverse incentive it's a lot more indirect.
  - mrisoli 9y ago
    Exactly, while they can benefit from having fewer people go regularly to offer a better experience to those who do, churn is still a gym's biggest problem, it's why they lock up longer contracts and why gyms have trainers available and regular progress reports, to enhance customer LTV.
jstanley 9y ago
That's also the business model of most dating websites.
kbutler 9y ago
Doctors and pharmaceutical companies are supposed to help you be healthy, but make more if you're ill long-term. Banks, credit card companies, and brokerages all make more money if you make poor financial decisions (fees, interest, and active trading, respectively). Auto mechanics and car companies make money if your car doesn't work or doesn't last past the warranty period. Even piano teachers only make money if you continue needing lessons, rather than becoming able to learn on your own. Hopefully enlightened businesses will follow the model that customer referrals are more scalable than bleeding the money out of any one individual.
- dumbfounder 9y ago
  You aren't making a case for, you are making cases against all these other industries.
- nck4222 9y ago
  >Doctors and pharmaceutical companies are supposed to help you be healthy, but make more if you're ill long-term. Which results in unnecessary procedures, and unnecessary prescriptions. >Banks, credit card companies, and brokerages all make more money if you make poor financial decisions Which caused the housing crisis and great recession. >Auto mechanics and car companies make money if your car doesn't work or doesn't last past the warranty period. Which results in some of the most untrustworthy salespeople in one of the most untrustworthy industries. All of those industries are regulated by the government, precisely because the incentives are wrong and it causes people to do more harm than good if left unregulated.
  - wuliwong 9y ago
    I was able to find a trustworthy mechanic. If they did a poor job or were sabotaging my car when I brought it to them, I would choose another mechanic.
    - nck4222 9y ago
      My point is those fields need extra regulations because there are incentives that promote unethical behavior, and thus shouldn't be used as examples of why this websites incentives are good business practices. Not that there's no such thing as a trustworthy mechanic.
iamwil 9y ago
But in this instance, that's the incentive. You want that money back, rather than going to someone else.

underyx 9y ago

It's easier to slack off on your goals if it feels like a noble thing to do.

Klathmon 9y ago
Couldn't the smart contract literally "burn" the funds in case of failure? Like transfer a small percentage to the owner as a fee for the service, then send the rest to a faulty address or contract setup to never be retrievable?
- detaro 9y ago
  yes. or maybe even distribute it among those that managed to reach their goals.
  - kbutler 9y ago
    Goal: "Set a goal that makes me eligible to receive a portion of the rewards". Done!
    - detaro 9y ago
      Even more reason to not fail your goal and give money to "stupid freeloaders" :P
  - dumbfounder 9y ago
    Then people might try to game the system. I think you present the excess to one person each day that receives votes as the best (public) goal matched. It incentivizes people to publicize their goals, which helps the business, and also makes them more likely to fulfill the goal. You will still see gaming I'm sure, but at least it will be vetted by peers.
  - Klathmon 9y ago
    In a way "burning" the funds already does distribute them to everyone else. Since that is now money that is forcibly and irrevocably taken out of circulation, so therefore everyone else's money is worth slightly more because of it!

berberous 9y ago

+1. I'd be fine giving the site a percentage as a cut, but would want to be able to designate an address for the primary portion of the funds.

mgberlin 9y ago

If you really want it to motivate, the funds should be sent to some group you detest if you fail. I.e. the DNC for a staunch republican, or the NRA for someone who believes in gun control.

dreeves 9y ago
Our (Beeminder's) counterargument: https://blog.beeminder.com/anticharity/ https://blog.beeminder.com/anticharity/ Excerpt: Take my thoughts on this with a huge grain of salt, given my conflict of interest, but I really dislike commitment devices that destroy things — either information or other forms of value. StickK’s anti-charities seem the most egregious, actively harming the world. I’m certainly motivated to not allow the world to become a worse place, so it’s not that it would be ineffective as a commitment contract. Just that I’m also motivated to prevent things that don’t make the world worse in any way, like paying money to a third party (who’s not evil).
- gnicholas 9y ago
  > StickK’s anti-charities seem the most egregious, actively harming the world. That assumes that (1) there are "good" charities and "bad" charities, and (2) that most of Stickk's users are good people who end up benefiting "bad" charities when they fail. Point (1) seems hard to prove and point (2) is impossible to prove without detailed info about how Stickk is used. It seems like you're in this market, so perhaps you have data like this. Do you? If not, how do you justify the above assertion?
  - dreeves 9y ago
    Good points, but I don't think we need assumptions that strong. For example, if democrats donate to the republican party as an anti-charity and republicans donate an equal total to the democratic party, then probably democrats and republicans would all agree that that's strictly worse than nobody donating at all. But more to the point, I'm just viewing it from the individual user's perspective. From your point of view, you're actively harming the world by donating to an anti-charity. It doesn't matter that those other wrong-on-the-internet people think your donation is doing good. :)

dominotw 9y ago

> instead maybe a Charity Money going to charity won't make me feel that bad about not achieving my goal. "oh well atleast someone needy is getting the money" Defeats the whole point of the exercise( pardon the pun).