5 ms·

It's not "social washing" if it's actually a working co-operative. We all collectively own the funds, and if we ever want to lower yearly rates or pay our memb

It's not "social washing" if it's actually a working co-operative. We all collectively own the funds, and if we ever want to lower yearly rates or pay our members dividends from surpluses, members are free to put it to a vote. Part of the reason we run a surplus is to deal with any unexpected costs (they don't just scale with users, but also the popularity of users on our server), but FWIW I think we should open up a pay-what-you-can tier much like social.coop has. Thanks for reminding me, I'll send it to the coop for consideration.

rglullis 2y ago
What would be the point of "paying dividends from surpluses", if the funds are getting in and out of the same (collective) pockets? And if "everyone" owns the coop, then why do you need to get the surplus in the first place? Seems to be it would be just fine to say "Every month we run a report of the total expenses, and every member pays an equal share".
- eszed 2y ago
  It's easier (both psychologically and financially) for users to budget for $x per period - with an explicit or implied promise that it won't ever be more than that - and it's easier for the org to plan for y users at $x, than it would be for either to adjust to paying / chasing $z period. It's a fairly common pricing strategy, which offers stability to both clients and organizations surviving on shoestring budgets and good-will.
  - rglullis 2y ago
    If you want to be protected against unexpected costs, you buy insurance, you don't overpay "just in case". All I am saying is that the coop (at least cosocial.ca) is not more capital and resource efficient than any good old service provider. We are talking here at a 250% price difference for less functionality. How would you justify that for orgs on a shoestring?
    - bagful 2y ago
      What is insurance if not “overpay[ing] ‘just in case’”? What does paying a middleman benefit you in this situation?
      - rglullis 2y ago
        What I am saying is that part of entering a contract with a service provider is insurance, e.g, SLA. The middleman (in the case, the business providing hosting services) also has a vested interest in pricing risk properly and in reducing the costs of accidents.
    - eszed 2y ago
      I don't think that's quite the way to look at it. Insurance is for disasters. Unexpected costs should be covered by a reserve fund - so, in effect, you self-insure for that kind of thing. Neither of us know anything about the financials of this group, but I can imagine a scenario in which they catch on, and their userbase scales 47x overnight (I mean, they're hoping for that, right?) and they need to spin up new resources right now. Good luck getting someone to write a "we got really popular" insurance policy, let alone pay out within the matter of hours / days they'd need the money. The "extra", right now, could be going towards filling up their reserve fund. Or not - we don't know - but that would be one of any number of legit reasons for asking for more than marginal-cost contributions. Anyway, people supporting this aren't doing it out of an entirely economic cost / benefit calculation. They believe in whatever mission the org has, and have a high-trust relationship with it, so "paying" more for whatever "product" won't be a concern for them (at least right now). The contribution model the organization has chosen is ideally suited for that sort of (not purely business) relationship. This group likewise doesn't interest me, but I can tell you stories about organizations I've belonged to and / or helped run that have worked that way more successfully than they would have in any other.
      - rglullis 2y ago
        > Insurance is for disasters No, insurance is the basic tool for anyone dealing with risk management and financial planning under chaotic variables. One class of these variables are "disasters", but "people get old and less productive in unpredictable rates" is also something that warrants insurance (pensions) and there will be plenty of people making a living by buying and selling options trading in the commodity markets, which also can be seen as "insurance" > and their userbase scales 47x overnight (I mean, they're hoping for that, right?) Why would they? They are not looking for boundless growth, just a sustainable operation for their servers. > They believe in whatever mission the org has, and have a high-trust relationship with it But what is this mission? "Run a service sustainably, without profiting of user data and contribute to the development of an open social web?" To me it seems there is not much else they can claim beyond what I said, and if that is the case then I can report that all of that is achievable through my run of the mill service that offers more services while costing 40% less.
- loa_in_ 2y ago
  I imagine bulk buying, less packaging, easier budgeting, among other things.
  - rglullis 2y ago
    How does that apply to a coop offering digital services, which have no physical shipping and costs can be easily fractioned/metered?

rglullis 2y ago

What would be the point of "paying dividends from surpluses", if the funds are getting in and out of the same (collective) pockets? And if "everyone" owns the coop, then why do you need to get the surplus in the first place? Seems to be it would be just fine to say "Every month we run a report of the total expenses, and every member pays an equal share".

eszed 2y ago
It's easier (both psychologically and financially) for users to budget for $x per period - with an explicit or implied promise that it won't ever be more than that - and it's easier for the org to plan for y users at $x, than it would be for either to adjust to paying / chasing $z period. It's a fairly common pricing strategy, which offers stability to both clients and organizations surviving on shoestring budgets and good-will.
- rglullis 2y ago
  If you want to be protected against unexpected costs, you buy insurance, you don't overpay "just in case". All I am saying is that the coop (at least cosocial.ca) is not more capital and resource efficient than any good old service provider. We are talking here at a 250% price difference for less functionality. How would you justify that for orgs on a shoestring?
  - bagful 2y ago
    What is insurance if not “overpay[ing] ‘just in case’”? What does paying a middleman benefit you in this situation?
    - rglullis 2y ago
      What I am saying is that part of entering a contract with a service provider is insurance, e.g, SLA. The middleman (in the case, the business providing hosting services) also has a vested interest in pricing risk properly and in reducing the costs of accidents.
  - eszed 2y ago
    I don't think that's quite the way to look at it. Insurance is for disasters. Unexpected costs should be covered by a reserve fund - so, in effect, you self-insure for that kind of thing. Neither of us know anything about the financials of this group, but I can imagine a scenario in which they catch on, and their userbase scales 47x overnight (I mean, they're hoping for that, right?) and they need to spin up new resources right now. Good luck getting someone to write a "we got really popular" insurance policy, let alone pay out within the matter of hours / days they'd need the money. The "extra", right now, could be going towards filling up their reserve fund. Or not - we don't know - but that would be one of any number of legit reasons for asking for more than marginal-cost contributions. Anyway, people supporting this aren't doing it out of an entirely economic cost / benefit calculation. They believe in whatever mission the org has, and have a high-trust relationship with it, so "paying" more for whatever "product" won't be a concern for them (at least right now). The contribution model the organization has chosen is ideally suited for that sort of (not purely business) relationship. This group likewise doesn't interest me, but I can tell you stories about organizations I've belonged to and / or helped run that have worked that way more successfully than they would have in any other.
    - rglullis 2y ago
      > Insurance is for disasters No, insurance is the basic tool for anyone dealing with risk management and financial planning under chaotic variables. One class of these variables are "disasters", but "people get old and less productive in unpredictable rates" is also something that warrants insurance (pensions) and there will be plenty of people making a living by buying and selling options trading in the commodity markets, which also can be seen as "insurance" > and their userbase scales 47x overnight (I mean, they're hoping for that, right?) Why would they? They are not looking for boundless growth, just a sustainable operation for their servers. > They believe in whatever mission the org has, and have a high-trust relationship with it But what is this mission? "Run a service sustainably, without profiting of user data and contribute to the development of an open social web?" To me it seems there is not much else they can claim beyond what I said, and if that is the case then I can report that all of that is achievable through my run of the mill service that offers more services while costing 40% less.
loa_in_ 2y ago
I imagine bulk buying, less packaging, easier budgeting, among other things.
- rglullis 2y ago
  How does that apply to a coop offering digital services, which have no physical shipping and costs can be easily fractioned/metered?