[CrossWired]

>> and will keep the funds otherwise.

If I'm possibly going to give my money away, why would I want to do this to some random contract, instead maybe a Charity or somewhere other than directly to the contract?

[supermdguy]

It is kind of awkward that a business that exists to help you get things done is paid whenever you fail.

[kbutler]

Doctors and pharmaceutical companies are supposed to help you be healthy, but make more if you're ill long-term.

Banks, credit card companies, and brokerages all make more money if you make poor financial decisions (fees, interest, and active trading, respectively).

Auto mechanics and car companies make money if your car doesn't work or doesn't last past the warranty period.

Even piano teachers only make money if you continue needing lessons, rather than becoming able to learn on your own.

Hopefully enlightened businesses will follow the model that customer referrals are more scalable than bleeding the money out of any one individual.

[falcolas]

This is effectively the business model of every health club out there. They lock you into a 1 year contract, knowing most people will not continue past the first or second month.

[iamwil]

But in this instance, that's the incentive. You want that money back, rather than going to someone else.

[jstanley]

That's also the business model of most dating websites.

[mgberlin]

If you really want it to motivate, the funds should be sent to some group you detest if you fail. I.e. the DNC for a staunch republican, or the NRA for someone who believes in gun control.

[dreeves]

Our (Beeminder's) counterargument: https://blog.beeminder.com/anticharity/

Excerpt:

Take my thoughts on this with a huge grain of salt, given my conflict of interest, but I really dislike commitment devices that destroy things — either information or other forms of value. StickK’s anti-charities seem the most egregious, actively harming the world. I’m certainly motivated to not allow the world to become a worse place, so it’s not that it would be ineffective as a commitment contract. Just that I’m also motivated to prevent things that don’t make the world worse in any way, like paying money to a third party (who’s not evil).

[underyx]

It's easier to slack off on your goals if it feels like a noble thing to do.

[Klathmon]

Couldn't the smart contract literally "burn" the funds in case of failure?

Like transfer a small percentage to the owner as a fee for the service, then send the rest to a faulty address or contract setup to never be retrievable?

[berberous]

+1. I'd be fine giving the site a percentage as a cut, but would want to be able to designate an address for the primary portion of the funds.

[dominotw]

> instead maybe a Charity

Money going to charity won't make me feel that bad about not achieving my goal.

"oh well atleast someone needy is getting the money"

Defeats the whole point of the exercise( pardon the pun).