Yes my "example" did use a zero year baseline for MLifers buying in, still does not change the point I was making.
Not sure I see my logic being faulty. It is just different from yours. Yes I could have bought in last year. I could buy in this year as well.
My logic is, maybe if there is credit given for money paid in already, even just a certain percentage, does not have to be an exact credit, then BPL could entice a few people signing up for year 2 or 3 or even 4 to put down more money this year for a Lifetime membership. Guaranteeing themselves more money today from those individuals then the uncertain possibility of future money from them, when some may discontinue there annual renewal. As I learned, stated above, some of the original MLIFErs bought in because the money was needed by BPL to get started. From what I have gathered with the closing of the BPL shop and the addition of advertisements, this is the case right now, money is needed. This could be a fundraising mechanism.
Yes some NPO's operate the way you stated, the year you become a lifer you pay in full regardless of the past, but there are many types of business models. I should not have said the current model was screwy, it is not. I meant to just bring another model to the table. A rent to own type deal, that could increase BPL's current capital and MLIFE member pool, strengthening the community. That is the reason there are the new benefits for LIFErs being rolled out, to entice more people to invest more of there money this year. I am approaching the same issue from a different angle.
C'est la vie