Re: Bitcoin donations
Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> writes:
> I consider Bitcoin to still be far less repulsive than both the
> mainstream banking system and para-banks like Paypal.
Likewise, I think Bitcoin is – while not perfect by any stretch – at
least as worthwhile as PayPal for donations to a worldwide community
organisation.
Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> writes:
> The link [to a 2014 Mozilla weblog article] does not support the claim
> that [Mozilla accepting Bitcoin donation] was a net negative. The link
> you site claims that sticking bitcoin donations *on the main donation
> form* was a net negative.
That was a little surprising. My best explanation today is that 2014 saw
a lot of critical scrutiny (well deserved, in many cases) of some
organisations that used Bitcoin; that may have tarred a donation form
merely by association with the name.
That has, AFAICT, changed dramatically in 2017: Bitcoin is known to be
associated with some crime, but is also known now to be used for a great
many legitimate uses. That was not something I think the general public
would believe in 2014, which might explain some of the effect observed
then.
The Mozilla donation page shows (for me? am I part of an A/B test now?)
a link to <URL:https://donate.mozilla.org/en-US/give-bitcoin/> the
option to donate with Bitcoin. I wonder what the data shows today for
their donations.
> At least from the discussion on that post it sounds like accepting
> bitcoin donations was a net positive provided that they were isolated
> from other donations.
What resources do we have availabe that would allow a similar A/B
testing experiment on showing “Other ways to donate: Bitcoin” on our
donation landing page?
--
\ “Courage is resistance to fear, mastery of fear — not absence |
`\ of fear.” —Mark Twain, _Pudd'n'head Wilson_ |
_o__) |
Ben Finney
Reply to: