So we're clear we want to have charity/planet before profit partners as part of our roll out / marketing model - that's where much of our reach and impact lies.

However, we've been talking about launching with 1 charity partner (eg. Real Junk Food Project) and being exclusive to them (ie. not allowing anyone to raise money for other charities/PBPs)

Craig (local people very interested in Dignity, and keen to support us) was the last person to very strongly encourage us to not make ourselves exclusive to one cause, even if we do have partners. He was suggesting that a partnership means all the same things as we've been intending, minus the exclusivity to them.

I'd like to make a careful decision on this, because if someone's passionate about supporting A Band Of Brothers (for example) and we don't partner with them or 'diversify' Dignity (to enable fundraising for any charity/PBP) until something like 2yrs in, that's a long time to exclude someone who's only interested to support that cause.

-

Partnering with 1 cause (then later, 2, then 3, etc) and only allowing users to fundraise for partners

PROS

• Even more incentive for those partners to partner with us, knowing that it's 'all about them'
• Simpler payment/donation process, especially starting with 1 partner (how much time does it take to create a new recipient charity - maybe 15 mins? And to send them money again - 5 mins? Could this be reduced somehow - eg. by sending money to causes monthly rather than ASAP?)

-

Partnering (as above) but allowing users to fundraise for any cause

PROS

• Many more users, faster growth, more inclusive
• Easier to get startup grant funding (not fundraising just for 1 charity)
• We have to find a way to enable this anyway, why not do it for launch, especially if our main reason is that we just didn't look very hard for a way to streamline the money movement?