3 ms·

Interesting concept. I've actually always envisioned a method of having a representative government that is actually representative of it's constituents by use

Interesting concept. I've actually always envisioned a method of having a representative government that is actually representative of it's constituents by use of social networking and technology (making it easier to communicate ideas, values and put the results together to bring to the floor). Since we're not near a world that will accept that type of system as those in power are not those leading in the technology and communication revolution, having a method that bridges the old way and a future way isn't a bad idea. With that said, I think there are some pitfalls that will need to be addressed. The idea of getting a lobbying group and using them to represent those funding a program gives me the feeling that there's a good chance that many actions won't go further than a first round. The money goes in, it gets a lobbyist group up and going and then.....what? It takes on going funding to fight for legislation, I think the model has to work in a manner that is closer to subscriptions so that it can be pushed for to an end. Which brings me to point 2. if you're going to go to a subscription based model, there has to be information shared to everyone, not just those willing to pledge the upper limits. If you're creating a group to fight for a cause then they need to continually be updated on said cause and given the chance to help further. Otherwise we run into point 1. Additionally, shouldn't the sharing of information be part of this goal? Why is it that only those that can pay the upper amounts get to hear back? I think ideally what happens is a team works behind the scenes on this project to review cases, put together the information and once a project reaches the 'open the case level', a subsite is setup for the cause, donors are placed on a mailing list, and the lobbyist group is searched for. A project plan is then put in place to estimate costs and effort so that on going funds can be added to help. Additionally, since lobbyists without any actual ties beyond a pay check aren't really fighting for a cause, individuals funding the group are put in place to help head the 'project'. This means reviews, putting together updates, and helping with decision making. In the end, the ability for a program like this to raise capital time and time over is only going to be by showing successful efforts. I think that in it's current form it doesn't have the ability to maintain a fight to that level of success- but I think that with some modifications it could. Interested in seeing how this develops.

sankho 15y ago
We 100% agree that we need to have continual funding, and that this will not be feasible without transparency and updating our pledgers. Before we can define these things, we are waiting for one thing: To confirm a partnership with another group to fund a cause. Once we can confirm whom we are funneling donations to, we will have an agreement in place with that group as to how we can be transparent and communicative to everyone involved. To some level, everyone that pledges will receive updates and information as to how their money is being spent. That is to say information will be available to ALL pledgers, not just the upper levels. The upper level pledgers, however, will receive more frequent updates and some amount of input themselves. We need to get better about communicating this on the site. As for continual funding, we are looking into a model which funds in rounds, as you alluded to. But, again, we are waiting to meet our goal and confirm a partnership before we enter that realm. We're extremely excited to see where this goes, and if you have any other thoughts please reach out to us! Our contact info's on the site.

sankho 15y ago

We 100% agree that we need to have continual funding, and that this will not be feasible without transparency and updating our pledgers. Before we can define these things, we are waiting for one thing: To confirm a partnership with another group to fund a cause. Once we can confirm whom we are funneling donations to, we will have an agreement in place with that group as to how we can be transparent and communicative to everyone involved. To some level, everyone that pledges will receive updates and information as to how their money is being spent. That is to say information will be available to ALL pledgers, not just the upper levels. The upper level pledgers, however, will receive more frequent updates and some amount of input themselves. We need to get better about communicating this on the site. As for continual funding, we are looking into a model which funds in rounds, as you alluded to. But, again, we are waiting to meet our goal and confirm a partnership before we enter that realm. We're extremely excited to see where this goes, and if you have any other thoughts please reach out to us! Our contact info's on the site.