[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [N8VEM-S100:2309] Re: accepting pre-orders for the S-100 Z80 CPU V2 board
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: [N8VEM-S100:2309] Re: accepting pre-orders for the S-100 Z80 CPU V2 board
- From: Paul Birkel <pbi...@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 15:33:30 -0500
- Authentication-results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of pbi...@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4002:c01::22e as permitted sender) smtp.mail=pbi...@gmail.com; dkim=pass head...@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=mhRbOUN8eKwBIX+xL1CMxymHY0ki5hmdqAUteUWncvE=; b=hGQecpLiXQkgMqly3oQsEatxl/ZoEaCkKRKRdKg9PWF80NutQLb/g/hKb1DLG5lbpe G4LHheuAEHdRlj63LWUQUEtCIUDFr6D3sLdQEGB/UGYE0aWJXkPNYfE7RW9nEGRvb3eu JkeK/Z6MHLS9cpGCoujzgaUwFIX5cG4lC8kXbaqni6J2sAdlUJDjo2NebomClj2p+2sV F/3M5C+zwWFyFRPd5kG3LUlj/5wifh5zYn0MTs+NilhwiHn+r2muWuoajLZK4Iu6q0ge d33Qew1AIo/+lrPP8B7sthQ+9MmkgHkh+sEUht5P3Lsfk3Am18ejAm/8RD7y9TUx/YrI +y1A==
- In-reply-to: <52F29816.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <000301cf0a56$2cc3ac00$864b0400$@YAHOO.COM> <email@example.com> <1391617596.81803.YahooMailNeo@web141701.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <000d01cf22a5$40a09e10$c1e1da30$@YAHOO.COM> <52F29816.firstname.lastname@example.org>
If I understand the situation correctly, and I'm certainly no financier, it seems as if the only issue is the *volume* of payments that Andrew receives. That could be avoided if:
1. For each new board, appoint a fund-collector ("czar"). Not Andrew.
2. PayPal to fund-collector. When they have accumulated the necessary amount they either send a single PayPal to Andrew or send a personal check (or other fund transfer mechanism).
Andrew sees a *lot* fewer incoming fund transfers. And doesn't have to worry about the funds-incoming tracking.
Assuming that fund collectors rotate, then each would only see 1/Nth the amount of fund-transfers that Andrew does currently, and then serve in that role maybe 1-2 times per year, assuming that N > 6-10.
Andrew doesn't place a board-order until he receives the aggregated-fund transfer. The aggregator presumably trusts Andrew, and each of us trust the aggregator.
Not quite as simple as now, but not particularly more complicated either. And *maybe* it also offloads a bit of the work from Andrew. It certainly ought to reduce the volume of incoming funds transfers for Andrew by a factor of more-or-less 20 (a SWAG on my part). That ought to satisfy PayPal. Or there are personal checks and avoid PayPal entirely/mostly for the second leg of the fund transfer?