I would not say my original version of Mutual Matching is in every sense more general.
Ok, I think you’re right, it’s not strictly more general.
QF mainly deserves a name of information eliciting … as … asymptotically all money has to come from the central funder if there are many ‘small’ donors
Agreed!
ability to set (or know) her monotonously increasing contribution directly as a function of the leverage, which I think is really is a core criterion for an effective ‘leverage increasing’
Yeah, that is a crucial component, but I think we need not only that, but also some natural way in which the donation saturates. Because when you keep funding some project, at some point the marginal utility from further funding decreases. (I’m not sure how original Mutual Matching deals with that.) I think Andrew Critch’s S-process deals with that very elegantly, and it would be nice to take inspiration from it. (In my method here, the individual donations saturate into some maximal personal limit, which I think is nice, but is not quite the same as the full project pot saturating.)
Ok, I think you’re right, it’s not strictly more general.
Agreed!
Yeah, that is a crucial component, but I think we need not only that, but also some natural way in which the donation saturates. Because when you keep funding some project, at some point the marginal utility from further funding decreases. (I’m not sure how original Mutual Matching deals with that.) I think Andrew Critch’s S-process deals with that very elegantly, and it would be nice to take inspiration from it. (In my method here, the individual donations saturate into some maximal personal limit, which I think is nice, but is not quite the same as the full project pot saturating.)