After watching those videos, the first one made the most succinct point that dismissed most of my **math exercise....
All that matters is two things:
1. How much the patron has taken from their account ... and ...
2. How much of that the recipient gets
... everything else is just smoke and mirrors.
In my $1 monthly donation, I was first miffed at the fact that it was $1
US so, depending on exchange rate, I could get something like AU$1.34 taken each month. I soon got comfortable with that knowing that Dave would be getting more. (I know $1 isn't much - but there are hundreds of us doing that ... and it all adds up.)
A couple of days later I noticed another 3 cent debit for a foreign currency transaction fee. Yay to my bank.
This just seems absurd when I'm less than half an hour's drive from dropping it into his hand.
And now we're jacking it up - to an expected $1.85. Sure, Dave will get more, but Patreon will be carving out an even bigger chunk percentage wise. Makes me start to "itch" - on principle - and scratching the itch will mean scratching my Patreon pledge. I'd be happier setting up a monthly direct debit to an account of Dave's. Sure I'd miss out on the communications - but it would be a fee free process.
(** and I didn't even touch on the multiple donation patrons!)The moral of the story is that the vast majority of the companies are working for their bottom line. People tend to attach all sorts of moral qualities to things, but in the end, they're just trying to manoeuvre themselves into the most profitable position.
I have no qualms about a business looking after its bottom line - just as long as they do so with honesty and fairness.
If we just look at the multiple support patron situation (as I understand it)... If we have 100 patrons, each supporting a group of 100 creators, then collecting the funds should need only take 100 transactions... but now we are going to see 10,000? Madness - unless you're a greedy payment processor.
The only "positive" out of such an approach is that, if a patron only has $50 to cover his $100 of pledges, then under the old scheme, the whole debit would be declined, whereas under the new scheme, half of them would go through. Hardly a compelling argument.