From 4d8daad6b7a6150b4f41ae745072aceb6aafaa8d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Ben Stull Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2026 11:52:20 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] docs(maker-platform): close Tier-1 PR-FAQ gaps (provenance, trust & safety, crowdfunding, pricing numbers) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Surface from the strategy memo into the PR-FAQ four answers a launch reviewer would expect the doc to stand on its own for: - per-item provenance mechanism (§7/§10/§11): classes, trust-surface eligibility, misclassification = de-verification, FTC substantiation - trust & safety: buyer pre-order/ghosting recourse (§10/§11) and the anti-collusion / rooted-trust-graph architecture (§7/§10) - the episodic-campaign incumbents — Kickstarter/Gamefound/BackerKit — via the campaign-vs-cadence distinction (Appendix B) - replace the "X%" pricing placeholder with worked illustrative all-in numbers; fix the imprecise "~20% more of every sale" subhead Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) --- docs/maker-platform-pr-faq.md | 140 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- 1 file changed, 122 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-) diff --git a/docs/maker-platform-pr-faq.md b/docs/maker-platform-pr-faq.md index a5b686e..e5b34db 100644 --- a/docs/maker-platform-pr-faq.md +++ b/docs/maker-platform-pr-faq.md @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ -# Maker Platform — PR-FAQ +# Wiggleverse Maker Collective - A Platform for Makers to Connect — PR-FAQ -> **What this is.** An Amazon-style **PR-FAQ** ("working backwards") version of +> **What this doc is.** An Amazon-style **PR-FAQ** ("working backwards") version of > [`maker-platform-strategy.md`](./maker-platform-strategy.md). It opens with a > future-dated *press release* written as if the product had already launched, > then answers the questions a smart skeptic would ask. It is a communication @@ -13,15 +13,7 @@ > transmission, marketplace-facilitator tax, chargebacks, GMV) is defined inline; > architecture is not. > -> **Product name.** "Wiggleverse Maker Collective" — chosen over "Wiggleverse Makers" -> and "Wiggleverse Market" because *collective* carries the demand-aggregation, -> commit-then-make motion and is deliberately **not** a marketplace word, holding the -> *network, not marketplace* positioning (memo §7). Full name on first use, then -> "Maker Collective". The public URL is makers.wiggleverse.org, matching the brand. -> Pre-launch, so not -> necessarily the final legal brand. **Dateline is aspirational** (target launch -> Aug 1, 2026), per the working-backwards method: the press release is the -> *target*, written before the build, not a record of a shipped thing. +> **Product name.** "Wiggleverse Maker Collective" --- @@ -31,8 +23,8 @@ **A verified-maker network where independent makers run customized orders, drops, pre-orders, and clubs in addition to traditional *stock-then-sell* commerce — and earn demand by vouching for each other, not by buying ads. The maker -keeps their own storefront, checkout, customers, and ~20% more of every sale than -on Etsy.** +keeps their own storefront, checkout, customers, and far more of every sale — all-in +fees around 4–7% versus Etsy's ~20%.** **SEATTLE, WA — August 1, 2026** — Maker Collective today opened to its first community of independent makers — the tabletop-miniatures scene: a @@ -171,14 +163,41 @@ So the play is two-sided: **out-tool** Patreon's club with a native, out-of-flow lower-fee version the maker owns (the Tool), and **out-flank** it with the cross-maker referral network it structurally can't grow (the Network). +**Isn't this just Kickstarter / Gamefound / BackerKit?** +No — and the distinction *is* the opening: **campaign vs. cadence** (Appendix B). +Kickstarter, **Gamefound** (tabletop-native, Kickstarter's biggest tabletop rival — +sitting *in* the miniatures vertical), and BackerKit are built for **episodic, +project-scale campaigns**: a big push that funds a project, then fulfillment. None of them +serves the maker running a small drop **every other Saturday**, a 10-piece lottery, a +monthly club, or a standing made-to-order queue — the **continuous** commitment-commerce +cadence. That continuous, relationship-driven, small-batch motion is the unserved space +*between* Shopify (continuous but stock-only) and Kickstarter/Gamefound (commitment but +episodic), and it's where we play. So the posture is **coexist, not compete**: run your big +annual campaign on Gamefound if that's the right tool for it — keep us for the continuous +cadence *between* campaigns, plus the cross-maker referral network none of them have. Two +structural cuts underline it: Kickstarter is itself **in the money flow** (it processes +pledges, takes a cut, and pays out, disclaiming only *delivery* liability), where we keep +the maker merchant-of-record on their own processor and shed both the flow and the +delivery liability (§7/§11); and the campaign players are single-project tools with **no +reputation-staked cross-maker referral graph** — the durable moat — which they won't build +for the same reason the others won't. + **What does it cost, and what's the "~20%" claim?** Marketplaces like Etsy bundle everything into one fee that, all-in, can approach ~20% of a sale (GMV = gross merchandise value, the total sold). We **unbundle**: you pay your own payment processor directly (their normal ~3%), and pay us a -separate, modest software fee billed in arrears — a small percentage on captured -orders for cold-start makers, or a flat **$29–49/month at 0%** once you graduate by -volume (§7, "How the platform gets paid"). The wedge is transparency: "our fee + -your processor ≈ X%, versus Etsy's ~20%" — stated in numbers. We bill on +separate, modest software fee billed in arrears, on a tier that **auto-graduates by +volume so you never overpay**: **Starter** at $0 + a small percentage (~2–4%) on +captured orders (so a low-price-point maker isn't over-taxed), or **Pro** at a flat +**$29–49/month + 0%** once your volume makes the flat fee cheaper (§7, "How the +platform gets paid"). Worked through, all-in — *illustrative; real rates are set at +launch*: +- a **Starter maker doing ~$1,200/mo**: ~2–4% platform + ~3% processor ≈ **5–7%** all-in; +- a **Pro maker doing ~$6,000/mo**: $39/mo + ~3% processor ≈ **~3.6%** all-in; +- **Etsy, for either of them: ~20%.** + +That's the wedge in the numbers the doc owes you, not a slogan: a maker keeps roughly +**13–16 percentage points more of every sale** than on Etsy. We bill only on *captured/fulfilled* orders, never on pledges that never cleared. **Do I have to abandon my Shopify store to join?** @@ -211,6 +230,37 @@ graph with sampling audits, because it's the highest-stakes mechanism in the sys **gate the demand, not the tool** — so verification is something makers are pulled toward, not blocked at. +**How do you know a specific *item* is original — not just that the maker is real?** +Two different checks, and conflating them is the Etsy failure mode. **Verification** is +about the *maker* ("a real maker of original work?"); **provenance** is per-*item* ("is +*this product* their original work?"). A real maker's catalog is legitimately mixed — a +potter sells their pots *and* resells pottery tools — so every item carries its own +**provenance classification** (§7), **self-attested** by the maker, **audited** by the +trust machinery, and **shown to the buyer**: *Original* (bought raw materials like clay +are inputs to making, not other-sourced parts) · *Original + components* (primarily +theirs, with identifiable parts from others attributed — the "partly original" kit case) +· *Resale – fellow maker* (an in-network maker's original item, provenance tracing to the +true maker — Curated-By as a catalog item) · *Resale – third-party* (commercial goods, +tools, supplies — honest, allowed, clearly *not* original). + +Two things make the badge a guarantee rather than a self-serve sticker. **Eligibility +keys off it, per item:** only *original* and *original-+-in-network-components* surface as +the maker's original work in Curated-By / the buyer feed / the agent feed; a fellow-maker +resale surfaces only *attributed to the true maker*; **third-party resale never enters a +trust surface** — surfacing it would launder non-original goods through a trusted face, +the Etsy pollution failure mode from the inside. And **misclassification has teeth:** +calling a resale "original" is a *provenance lie*, not a clerical slip — a +**verification-revocation trigger** (§10), with self-attestation (cheap to classify) +policed by **sampling audits plus buyer reporting** (risky to game). One useful +consequence: because "handmade/original" are advertising claims the FTC can require you to +substantiate, this system *is* the substantiation mechanism (§11) — the product-defining +feature and the compliance obligation are the same build. + +What's still open, deliberately: the precise, auditable line between *making* and +*reselling* — purchased supplies don't taint "original," but assembling mostly-third-party +parts isn't original either; finishing, assembling, and kitting sit in between. That +standard is named as later work (§14 #2), not claimed as solved. + **What is "Curated By This Maker," and how do referrals pay?** Each storefront carries a section where the maker features other *verified* makers' products they genuinely admire. When a buyer follows that link and buys, the @@ -257,6 +307,26 @@ Three things, in the order they matter (the buyer value prop, memo §13): *you* chose to follow and the makers *they* vouch for, never an algorithm pushing whatever converts (§7, "The buyer-facing feed"). +**I pre-ordered, and the maker never delivered. What protects me?** +This is the *signature* risk of commitment commerce, not an edge case — the model collects +money before delivery, so "a verified maker takes pre-orders/deposits and ghosts" is the +structurally most-likely scam, and a PR-FAQ that skipped it would be dishonest (§10). Two +straight answers. **First, the platform is not a guarantor.** The same out-of-the-money- +flow design that keeps fees low means the network never holds your funds — so it has +nothing to refund *from*; escrow was declined deliberately (holding buyer funds is exactly +what triggers money-transmitter licensing — §11). Your monetary recourse is a +**chargeback against the maker's own payment processor** (the maker is merchant of +record), and the platform's compliance-by-design checkout enforces the **FTC 30-Day Rule** +— a maker who can't ship on time must notify and offer a refund — which is your first +recourse *before* a chargeback (§11). **Second, the platform's contribution is +consequence, not insurance.** Non-delivery drops the maker's standing: a **low, +buyer-visible reputation score** and **loss of all network amplification** (Curated-By, the +buyer feed, referrals, the agent feed). They keep their storefront, but they fall out of +every surface that sends them buyers, and you — and every future buyer — can see the score. +That's *transparency as enforcement* (§10): the network doesn't promise nobody ever +behaves badly; it makes bad behavior legible and costly, and keeps the trusted surfaces +clean by construction, since a low-standing maker has already dropped out of them. + --- ### Part 2 — Strategy & build questions (for the technically-minded skeptic) @@ -363,6 +433,40 @@ deferred): *direction* (progressive delegation, phased, capture-resistant) is set — the machinery is later work. +**What actually stops collusion — a ring of fake makers vouching each other in, or weaponized reports?** +The highest-stakes surface in the system, because one polluted "verified" item breaks the +guarantee for every buyer and agent downstream (§7, §10). The defenses are structural, not +best-effort: +- **The trust graph is rooted, never flat.** It is emphatically *not* "anyone verified can + verify anyone." Every maker enters by invitation and traces back, by a chain of vouches, + to a seed set Wiggleverse staff verified directly — a **permanent topology** that + persists even after open signup arrives, so a compromised subtree can be found and + revoked at its root. +- **Inviting pays nothing.** There is deliberately **no per-invite bounty** — a payout + would manufacture the exact Sybil/farming incentive the rooted graph exists to resist. + You invite people whose work you'd stake your standing on, because that is the only thing + the edge means. +- **The vouch is a slashable stake, and consequence flows uphill.** When a maker + misbehaves, consequence propagates **back toward whoever vouched for them** — transitively, + **decayed per hop, and hop-capped**: strong right next to the misbehavior (the inviter who + can actually act), negligible by ~6 degrees out (a distant root isn't punished for a + great-great-invitee's fraud). A bad vouch costs the voucher standing; a good one compounds + it. +- **The consequence is loss of standing, not expulsion.** A bad actor keeps the storefront + tool (a paying customer; the tool was never gated) but loses a buyer-visible score and + all amplification. Authority is layered: the **inviter** holds primary suspend authority + over their sub-graph, a **platform floor** lets staff act directly on active buyer harm + regardless, and a **governance appeal path** (§14 #1) protects the wrongly-penalized. +- **Sampling audits + buyer reporting** sit underneath — and the abuse surface of the + reporting system *itself* (false reports, retaliatory scores, collusion rings) is named + as instrumented from day one alongside ring-detection. + +What's deliberately deferred (and marked so): the *reputation engine's* concrete mechanics +— the scoring math, the decay-coefficient and hop-cap *values*, the benefit-gating +thresholds, and the false-report/collusion controls — are explicit OHM-guided open work +(§10, §14 #1), not claimed as solved. The *shape* is settled; the *values* are later work, +because n=2 can't calibrate them yet. + **Why now?** This is the org-level [Wiggleverse thesis](https://wiggleverse.org/about/) ("the era of infinite alternatives") applied to maker commerce: every era commoditizes something @@ -404,7 +508,7 @@ first for four reasons: network moat against eroding incumbents, OHM ethics made concrete (verification, provenance, usage-rights), and the open-core partner ecosystem. Prove it here and the rest is de-risked. -- **The ethic, legible in dollars.** "Our fee + your processor ≈ X% vs Etsy's ~20%" — +- **The ethic, legible in dollars.** "Our fee + your processor ≈ 4–7% vs Etsy's ~20%" — the mission is a number on every sale, not a slogan. - **"Small businesses are really just people."** Serving makers directly is the mission — treat humans as humans — applied where commerce most turned them into accounts.