We already have a version of "self-pay", namely the very low student rate. For that rate, you are supposed to show student ID (not sure how and whether this is enforced), so it's not quite the same, but it's a "means-based" test, as well as an attempt to increase the diversity of participants. Nearly every scientific conference has versions of differentiated pricing - special rates for authors, attendees from low-income countries, students, society members (i.e., likely repeat attendees), ... In those venues, the general rule of thumb for organizers is that even the lowest priced category pays for the variable costs, and the fixed costs are borne by those more able to pay. We also have the early-registration rate - thus, late and on-site registrations "subsidize" the early bird moochers. We presumably want to encourage building a community, and that includes making it possible for people to attend who might not otherwise be able to. Our objective is not one-time revenue optimization. Many individuals switch back-and-forth between traveling on their own dime and on corporate tabs, and we want to encourage continued engagement, if only to increase our supply of Nomcom-eligibles. Thus, I think this is worth exploring, as an experiment, just like we started the day-pass experiment a number of years ago. Henning > I'm not talking about posting this info on web, nor a "full range of potential". We already have multiple reg-fee categories; I'm talking about adding *one* more. I don't know who in the "leadership" can see a list of what rates people paid - if we need to constrain that, that's a solvable problem. It's not the sky falling. > > Regardless, the same argument can be made for charging remote participants to "donate" 0-100% or whatever. > > -hadriel > >