On 30/12/06, The Cunctator <cunctator(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On 12/29/06, David Gerard
<dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 29/12/06, The Cunctator <cunctator(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > How about sponsors get listed in the
order of the percentage of their
> > net worth they contributed? So some guy who makes $15K a year and
> > donates $100 gets listed higher than some guy worth $6 billion who
> > donates $200K.
> > Yes, I recognize that's not actually feasible, but I think you get the
idea.
> > You shouldn't get to pay to get higher placement on some donor list
> > just because you're richer.
> That idea has some heartwarming qualities,
but it doesn't get us more
> of the cash. Because the second guy gave us more *we* can use than the
> first did. Which is, after all, the point of the exercise.
Ah, but there are more of the first guys.
Yeah, but you need both. As I said earlier, donations almost always
follow a power law, like Alexa ratings or whatever. And you don't get
the first without the thank-yous, because they're used to them.
So let's retrain them. Don't charitable entrepeneurs want to break the
traditional paradigms?