3 ms·
Agreed. I would sign up if the money went to my friend (with a reasonable cut to the owner), but not if the money goes to the owners.
by fnbr 13y ago
Agreed. I would sign up if the money went to my friend (with a reasonable cut to the owner), but not if the money goes to the owners.
- paulgb 13y agoWell, if you don't want the money to go to the owner, that's all the more incentive to Go Fucking Do It ;)
- riggins 13y agoI hope the developer lets us know how this goes. I'm kinda dying to know if people actually sign up to send some random website money. As it is, I'm almost wondering if its satire.
- pieterhg 13y agoIn the back of my head was letting the user pick a charity and/or indeed letting the user specify a third friend to send it to (and maybe take a cut from there). I'll keep reading what everyone here thinks and implement that once there's some consensus.
- oneeyedpigeon 13y agoHaving it go to the first friend encourages an obvious bias, although that just depends on how much you trust that friend. Having it all go to you, the site owner, seems a bit unfair (a massive reward/effort ratio!) and nominating a charity would be an excellent way of mitigating that. I've heard of a similar incentive-based scheme in which you pay money to an entity you dislike (e.g. democrat donating to republican party) if you fail.
- riggins 13y agoI can think of 2 options. 1. Benevolent option: the money goes to the website but it goes back to the user after a year, less a fee (the website will also earn interest for that year so you'd get fee + interest income). Not only do you help people stop procrastinating but you also help them with a saving program. 2. Devious option (and probably more commercially viable). the website takes the money but the website also runs a weekly lottery that pays out some fraction of the revenue collected.
- danoprey 13y agoI think https://www.beeminder.com/ https://www.beeminder.com/ have been doing that for years, although with a cut going to charity.