I'm sorry, but this idea really doesn't make any sense to me. $1 on every project doesn't make any meaningful difference--every project that would have failed without it will still fail, and every project that would have succeeded will still succeed. Your contributions have zero impact if you do it this way.

If you instead looked for promising projects that would fail without your ~$2000 contribution and "save" them, you really could make a huge difference.

You would be surprised at some of the messages we get. Actually heartfelt responses of folks saying that getting this first pledge pushed them over the edge to push harder. I'm excited that if we get to a point where the funds might be even $5 or $20 per project, that CAN be a material difference to lots of cool projects. Projects don't need even $1000 goals to be compelling.

I'm sure that it's encouraging to people, but in the end it's very unlikely to change any outcomes. If the project is going to succeed, someone else would have made that first pledge, and the same effect would have happened. It feels impactful from your end because you're getting involved in so many projects (and getting a lot of thank-you messages), but if all the same projects succeed and fail you haven't actually affected anything.

It's probably also worth mentioning that small pledges (especially $1 ones) are the least efficient in terms of how much of the pledge is lost to fees. A $1 pledge on Kickstarter loses 15% to fees. This is made even worse by having the money come via Patreon, where a similar chunk is lost. So if someone pledges $1/month on Patreon to you, this will end up with a project creator only receiving about 70 cents of it.

I don't mean to be too cynical, it's a great thing to do. I just think it's worth considering if this is really the best approach, or if you could change your method a bit and make more of an impact with the effort and money you're devoting to it.

Why donate to this, paying 10% to Patreon and possibly an unknown percentage to cover The Creative Fund’s overhead (if not, how will the project sustain itself?) as opposed to giving directly to the projects that deserve it most?

A much more interesting model for me would be something like a “last 20%” backer. Let users vote on campaigns that have 20% and and only a few days to go, looking very likely to fail. Winners get funded by The Creative Fund (provided its within a certain max funding threshold).

I don't mean to be a downer here... but what impact does this project realistically hope to have? A dollar spread that thinly might as well be nothing.

We're still learning, but so far we've had overwhelmingly positive feedback from folks that feel encouraged by our pledges. We're also working to raise more funds so we can increase the amount of each pledge. It's in the article, but 100% of the funds we raise on Patreon will go towards that goal.

So the goal is to pat people on the back with token amounts of money? Well, it's not my money...

As we mention in the article, a lot of it IS about the token statement, and we have thousands of KS messages at least of grateful folks supporting. Do you value your $1 supporters on Patreon? Do they have a material benefit for you?

If we figured out how to make the fund work for Patreon, how would you feel?

I do value my $1 supporters on Patreon - emotionally because they chose to support my work in particular rather than the mindless shotgun approach, and financially because there are 46 of them.

If this project raises enough to give $46 to every project, they'll need $92,000 by their own reckoning and will still be giving little more than a vapid pittance to each. Can you really not think of something better to do with 92 grand?

*47 now

(can't reply to your latest comment directly)

I legit shared your most recent blog post " Simple, correct, fast: in that order" to our dev #goodreads slack channel on Monday, so go figure.

Haha, thanks, I guess. If you actually use and apprecitate my work, then of course I appreciate your support, but otherwise I'd rather you kept the money.

Why should you feel encouraged by receiving a dollar if anybody gets the dollar whether their project is good or not?

People putting themselves out there, even if it's not quite there, is still something worth encouraging IMHO.

It's hard to get a single person to care. The Creative Fund now is a group of folks want to see people take the leap and try and put new things into the world.

By inserting itself between buyer and seller, it gets a cut of the money flowing.

Happy to answer any questions! This was a fun project to start, and we have lots of crazy ideas how we might make this even more fun (ie Patreon people above a certain level automatically get filled out to get rewards, etc etc)

Some projects on Kickstarter are bad and even harmful and shouldn't be helped.

Great point. We do outline that we reserve the right not to support certain projects per our guidelines: https://thecreative.fund/participation-guidelines

Also, Kickstarter does a great job keeping the project quality to the point of staying in ultra murky territory, which we are very appreciative.

Is this really an effective way to fund projects? What are all these projects going to do with $1? Wouldn't it be better to give 1 very promising project $2,000?

$1 can be an inspiring start that gets folks to promote their project and get up and get going. It is a bit more about the principle, like a high five to get up and get going.

Also part of the experiment is the Patreon. Every $1,000 we may or may not raise means we can up the amount by ~$1, every month. So that means as an individual, you can pledge ~$12/year and say you contributed to every project on Kickstarter that year.

A dollar is not a meaningful contribution. It would be better to make a 20-100 list and give 500-2k. Else is it really a Fund?

Or better yet, fund a sweeping amount to their minimum goal level, either by votes or without notice.

if our patron list grows, it could be this big! Good things start small.

Do they?