"fixed funding" is a correct and usable phrase in written English.
It is typically used to refer to a funding amount that is determined upfront and does not increase or decrease. For example: "The company was able to secure five years of fixed funding from a private investor."
It could be possible for government and private providers to operate in the same market, with each receiving fixed funding per person served.
Enfojer's Croatian creators are seeking $100,000 on Indiegogo to fund manufacturing costs of the device — but it's not a fixed funding campaign so they'll get to take home whatever the crowd decides to shower on them.
The Quasar IV is going to be made, despite the fact that there are only nine days remaining in its Indiegogo crowdfunding campaign, and only $48,796 raised out of $3.2 million sought on a fixed funding goal (meaning they don't get anything if they haven't got the whole amount committed).
Fixed funding streams and consultation mechanisms have their place.
For this reason, the authors conclude that financing a trust fund or other risk management instrument should be based on a site delimited estimate of potential future expected financial consequences rather than on the random adoption of a fixed funding stream, e.g., a blanket $1 per ton, because it "sounds" reasonable.
Launch Pad has done away with the "fixed funding" model and instead chooses to engage startups on more flexible terms that "don't impact their valuation".
Thus, legislation to raise wages would be unsuccessful, since there was only a fixed fund to draw on.
And as the number of shares is fixed, funds are "closed-ended", so their price is determined by demand and supply in the market – ie the number of investors who want to buy and sell.
It followed that legislation designed to raise wages would not be successful, for, with only a fixed fund to draw upon, higher wages for some workers could be won only at the expense of other workers.
You were probably living on fixed funds, and had to make decisions on how to allocate them.
In five versions of the survey the choices were described in a context of how to allocate additional funds provided by the government (extra funds scenario), whereas in the sixth version the choices were framed as whether to treat patients with rare diseases by reducing the number of patients currently treated for common diseases (fixed funds scenario).
