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