Hacker News Reader

Sure... What I meant to point out is that the model is that everyone that appears on the website has already been funded. This is the same model Kiva uses, and the model can be a little misleading for people who think they're actually crowdfunding someone's health/loan. The health coverage or loan has already happened by the time the users see the faces of the beneficiaries on the site.

View on HN

I have no idea why this level of detail is interesting to donors. Money is fungible, and it is a reasonable and accurate assumption that a donation that you make to a particular Watsi patient is enabling treatment for that person.

Couple things: - Donors use some criteria to decide which person to give money to. I guess this is more relevant to Kiva than Watsi, where a donor potentially evaluates the project the loan is funding, its potential for success, etc. In reality, your decision doesn't make (that much) difference at that point. The loan is already out. - More importantly to me, when I found about about this model, I just felt misled. I felt tricked into believing something that wasn't true, and it made me slightly lose trust in the company. Not a big deal, I still fully support them and recognize that the model works, but it can be kind of misleading to donors.

I'm really having a hard time synthesizing misdirection from Watsi's simple promise that they will themselves personally guarantee funding of any selected patient. That promise is the only detail your comment seems to have uncovered, and it's somehow a bad thing?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com