ok, that makes sense. So like maybe if the monster offers to supply flowers then that is trade but if just increase its wellbeing then investment. (ish?)
I was confused by the graphic: I misread ‘make a pledge’ as invest funding. Then, it would read as if impact is achieved, invest the funding but if impact is not achieved you lost the money and you have to invest more for which the ‘redeploy’ euphemism is used. But—since pledge means only invest if impact is achieved, then it is invest only if impact is achieved and if not, then there can be another contract that pays for impact.
Oh, I see, thanks. Possibly, understanding this a bit.
Monster: Hmm, the monster is who produces the happiness that the utilitarians want to foster. Or what do you mean?
Pledge: Oh, I see! I’ve read their whitepaper. It’s very clearly written and also consistently uses investment only for the for-profit thing and donation or donation pledge for retro-funding. :-)
ok, that makes sense. So like maybe if the monster offers to supply flowers then that is trade but if just increase its wellbeing then investment. (ish?)
I was confused by the graphic: I misread ‘make a pledge’ as invest funding. Then, it would read as if impact is achieved, invest the funding but if impact is not achieved you lost the money and you have to invest more for which the ‘redeploy’ euphemism is used. But—since pledge means only invest if impact is achieved, then it is invest only if impact is achieved and if not, then there can be another contract that pays for impact.
Oh, I see, thanks. Possibly, understanding this a bit.
Monster: Hmm, the monster is who produces the happiness that the utilitarians want to foster. Or what do you mean?
Pledge: Oh, I see! I’ve read their whitepaper. It’s very clearly written and also consistently uses investment only for the for-profit thing and donation or donation pledge for retro-funding. :-)