51–60 of 66 posts
Why is a central authority controlling the market again ? What we need is interfaces for the customer and workers that can be matched together by a broker. It's probably quite hard to find the right interface but it would then benefit everyone. Here is a simpler example for a Uber-like implementation: * Taxis would be advertising their current position and whenever they they are free or not with their phone. * Potent…
Why is a central authority controlling the market again ? What we need is interfaces for the customer and workers that can be matched together by a broker. It's probably quite hard to find the right interface but it would then benefit everyone. Here is a simpler example for a Uber-like implementation: * Taxis would be advertising their current position and whenever they they are free or not with their phone. * Potent…
Yes, protocols, not platforms.
Why is a central authority controlling the market again ? What we need is interfaces for the customer and workers that can be matched together by a broker. It's probably quite hard to find the right interface but it would then benefit everyone. Here is a simpler example for a Uber-like implementation: * Taxis would be advertising their current position and whenever they they are free or not with their phone. * Potent…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1% to 3% won't even cover the direct costs of being an intermediary for payments if you e.g. accept credit cards. Such levels of pricing is not sustainable unless you're burning money to provide the service at a loss while you gain market share and network effects. I agree that 20% fee seems excessive, but as soon as you're handling other people's money, 1-3% are not reasonable rates, they are unrealistically low, no…
Bitcoin has several solutions here. First of all the transaction fee is small, around $.05 at the moment[1]. Second, there are contracts and escrows[2,3] which would support remote work by strangers. 1. https://bitcoinfees.21.co/ 2. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bitcoin_Escrow_Service 3. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Contract
BTC is a possibility for settling particular purchases, but it's not the best way to receive your main income, it's like getting paid in an obscure foreign currency.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bitcoin has several solutions here. First of all the transaction fee is small, around $.05 at the moment[1]. Second, there are contracts and escrows[2,3] which would support remote work by strangers. 1. https://bitcoinfees.21.co/ 2. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bitcoin_Escrow_Service 3. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Contract
Exchanging money for BTC (the buying company) and BTC back to money (so the worker can pay rent and buy food) isn't fast nor free, and is likely to cost more than the 1-3% once all those expenses are factored in. BTC is a possibility for settling particular purchases, but it's not the best way to receive your main income, it's like getting paid in an obscure foreign currency.
Last month I was at a sheep and wool festival (yeah just what it sounds like) in central MD, visiting a merchant in a straw floor awning tent at the county fairgrounds. He had a sign up saying he preferred BTC because card fees kill him. My wife whipped out her Mycelium app and the transaction went through in seconds.
It's not Macy's or Amazon yet, but it's getting there. Overstock takes it.
The merger did precisely what they wanted it to do:
Give a single player a dominant market-share. This single player will then engage in price-flooring practices until they've snatched up the largest market-share. They will then enforce their gradual fee and upselling strategies.
This is no different to any other market where a monopoly exists. Internet companies like to claim they aren't monopolies by saying "just visit another site for their services" but entrenchment of the market is exactly what makes them monopolies.
If a large-enough competitor came along (with big funding backing it), you'd soon see Upwork change tack and go back to price-flooring.
A lot of people are mentioning "let's build a clone that is better and will do us greater justice", but ask yourself, with 14 million entrenched users, how is building an upwork clone any different to "let's build a twitter/facebook clone"? The merger did precisely what they wanted it to do: Give a single player a dominant market-share. This single player will then engage in price-flooring practices until they've sna…
There is not necessarily a need for 100% community effort. What is needed a simple, decent service, with reasonable rates ( from 1% to 3% from a transaction ) and keeps up with the requests. Such a service could be run by a max 5 person company and I believe everyone could profit. I worked with Upwork and I liked the concept, but the implementation was a bit to complicated. With this changes, I really hope new such s…
They seem to be alienating certain groups of freelancers deliberately.
Freelancers are also numerous and cheap and Upwork definitely can afford to lose some of them, or even a lot of them, as long as keep the clients. But, as in the case of Ebay, the problem is that small contractors are also potential clients. Moreover, small clients add an interesting and very desirable collateral effect to the platform: A big increase in job diversity. If you alienate those people, you risk to lose some money, but also the outliers, very specialized freelancers interested in solving rare problems or offering less common experiences in many fields.
As Ebay before promoting big asian sellers with a lot of transactions, It seems that Upwork is mostly interested in big clients with lots of work that needs to be done, posting again and again the same type of jobs. This could lead to:
1) The same few stablished freelancers being hired again and again. New freelancers eventually will lost interest and leave the platform, or will be swallowed by the sucessful freelancers, now stablished as agencies or farmers, and forced to work for less money.
2) ... Or there is always a different freelancer hired. This would point to a problem with quality of freelancers or clients (can't keep any freelancer for much time and need to repost the same job each month).
3) ... Or nobody is hired. A red flag that could be seen also as a worrying symptom of "ashley-madisonization" of the platform.
I hope the best for the company, but it is unclear currently to me if this will be a smart move or a big mistake.
A lot of people are mentioning "let's build a clone that is better and will do us greater justice", but ask yourself, with 14 million entrenched users, how is building an upwork clone any different to "let's build a twitter/facebook clone"? The merger did precisely what they wanted it to do: Give a single player a dominant market-share. This single player will then engage in price-flooring practices until they've sna…