HN is bad at subtext, so let me offer you a decoder ring on the subtext of the 'pg story we're commenting on:
YC is working on addressing the problem of funding Watsi's overhead. The point of the service is that end-users don't fund Watsi, they fund patients. In the same sense as you need to take it sort of on faith that Airbnb can bootstrap and maintain a two-sided market for short-term lodging, you should probably take it on faith that Watsi's model is going to work; if you want to make Watsi work well, go fund a patient with it.
There is a real 13 year old girl on Watsi right now who is unable to walk because of a correctible congenital condition. Who cares about the Watsi founders? Go help the girl! :)
Who cares about the Watsi founders? Go help the girl!
I think the point is not that people particularly care about the Watsi founders; but rather, that they care about the hundreds of thousands of other girls whom Watsi won't be able to help if Watsi and/or its founders go bankrupt because they lack a sustainable funding model.
I don't understand the logic there; at least in terms of stopping someone from getting involved: the girls you can help now should be just as, if not more important than the future.
Note, that comes across as snarky via text, but it's not meant to be. I'm just explaining my way of thinking about it. :)
The logic is that it takes time and money to get to where people can be helped. While it is true that Watsi can help people now regardless of whether they will be able to in a year, it's much more effective for Watsi to continue to exist because otherwise another organization will have to pay the startup time and money cost again.
Also, it is entirely possible to donate and also have this discussion, so you may very well be talking to people who both help present needs and express concern for potential unmet future needs.
It's not about whether or not to use Watsi now, but a concern on behalf of Watsi. I'm not going to refrain from donating today because Watsi might go away tomorrow, but I'm certainly concerned about if and how it will still be here tomorrow.
Wow, I'm the embodiment of HN being bad at subtext! :P
On the one hand, I see your point, and I went and helped a little girl (as it happens, a different one). Maybe it doesn't need to be sustainable. It sounds like they've got it covered for now, and if they "only" help a few hundred people before they have to look for other work, that's pretty good.
On the other hand, I don't think it's off-topic to comment on the viability of a business model on a forum about startups. I know it's working in practice, but can it work in theory? :)
YC is working on addressing the problem of funding Watsi's overhead. The point of the service is that end-users don't fund Watsi, they fund patients. In the same sense as you need to take it sort of on faith that Airbnb can bootstrap and maintain a two-sided market for short-term lodging, you should probably take it on faith that Watsi's model is going to work; if you want to make Watsi work well, go fund a patient with it.
There is a real 13 year old girl on Watsi right now who is unable to walk because of a correctible congenital condition. Who cares about the Watsi founders? Go help the girl! :)