[calmdown13]

Thanks for the suggestion! I have thought about using positive reinforcement, and I am still considering it as possible future feature. One of the reasons I chose to start with negative reinforcement is that I had read in "Thinking, Fast and Slow" that losses tended to be more motivating. I think there are arguments about whether that holds up or not, but I think it's true of my own experiences.

Setting money aside in escrow is definitely an interesting idea, but as you say, requires quite a lot of trust. I did toy with idea of rewarding people with the punishment money from other failed commitments but it'd be quite tricky to make the rewards worthwhile, while making sure the system doesn't get gamed.

[calmdown13]

I suppose using something like a smart contract could maybe help with the trust issue, although perhaps only with relatively tech savvy users for now.

[dreeves]

I'm not sure if it ends up too in-the-weeds but we had a fun debate with one of our Beeminder-but-on-the-blockchain competitors recently: https://forum.beeminder.com/t/decentralization-debate-beemin...

Very short version: We don't think smart contracts add much. Your users trust you.

[Lorkki]

> losses tended to be more motivating

For some definition of "motivating", probably so, but I wouldn't want to take that extra stress to keep a self-motivated minor commitment.

[calmdown13]

Would you be more likely to use something like the escrow system described above? Or is there an alternative mechanism that you'd be more interested in?