The Bitcoin Model for Crowdfunding
startupboy.com
The Bitcoin Model for Crowdfunding
1–10 of 36 posts
Re: The Bitcoin Model for Crowdfunding
#2Micropayments has come to pass.
And with that, Charlie Brooker's scifi television show becomes more apparent.
Re: The Bitcoin Model for Crowdfunding
#3Naval's model isn't a million miles away from ASICMiner's "corporate" structure. It's also a step in the general direction of a commodity future-like cryptocurrency, with computing services as the underlying commodity.
A crytocurrency can't succeed, in my opinion, unless it has intrinsic value or exists as a means of exchanging value within a closed ecosystem where fiat currencies are impractical for whatever reason.
Re: The Bitcoin Model for Crowdfunding
#4Exactly what I've been thinking over the past week as I've watched some cause-themed coins start to take off.
Most people try to squeeze their mental model of what cryptocoins are into something like a currency, but there are really interesting equity / p2p database aspects too.
Re: The Bitcoin Model for Crowdfunding
#5Isn't that exactly what Marscoin (www.marscoin.org) does - trying to privately fund space exploration by letting people buy into the altcoin.
Re: The Bitcoin Model for Crowdfunding
#6crowd equity will be huge
Re: The Bitcoin Model for Crowdfunding
#7I've been thinking about this for a while, particularly with bandwidth as the scarce resource. I don't quite grok the connections between the crypto aspect, the stock aspect and the currency aspect.
The problem is that (the way Naval treats them) each of the main variables seem arbitrary, but could easily determine whether the economy you create is viable.
> Pre-mine or early-mine Appcoins and keep some non-threatening amount.
In Bitcoin, though the system itself is "trustless", participants trust that they are all treated equally according to the protocol & open source code.
In the case of a startup raising funds, you wouldn't get the same sense of altruism. The incentives are not aligned for the major players: the startup founders, the protocol developers, the other coin owners/shareholders and the miners.
Should an arbitrary pre-mined amount be set (as the founders' equity), and simultaneously be non-threatening, what is to stop the network from invalidating the pre-mined amount at will?
If it were instead threatening, why would miners be interested in spending compute power?
Naval also writes of supporting the open source developers with transaction fees. Unlike the commodity on which the coins are based, these are not easy values to calculate.
Certainly there are a lot of possible new models, and autonomous corporations are very exciting. I just don't see how you can add a founder-controlled, for-profit startup to the other players in a crypto currency ecosystem (the miners, the non-profit developer foundation and the coin owners) and get something that works.
Re: The Bitcoin Model for Crowdfunding
#8You're still paying for the service. Basically this is talking about making free services non-free to support the creation and growth of the service.
Re: The Bitcoin Model for Crowdfunding
#9Naval's model isn't a million miles away from ASICMiner's "corporate" structure. It's also a step in the general direction of a commodity future-like cryptocurrency, with computing services as the underlying commodity. A crytocurrency can't succeed, in my opinion, unless it has intrinsic value or exists as a means of exchanging value within a closed ecosystem where fiat currencies are impractical for whatever reason.
There is no such thing as intrinsic values in any currency Fiat, digital or crypto.
The value in a crypto-currency is determined by how much the "nodes" trust the network. This trust takes time to build as we are seeing with the various alternative CCs coming out these days and thats just ok.
But keep in mind that the currency is only one way to use the technology. You could in theory have an ebook be based on the technology.
Re: The Bitcoin Model for Crowdfunding
#10You're still paying for the service. Basically this is talking about making free services non-free to support the creation and growth of the service.
> this is talking about making free services non-free to support the creation and growth of the service
Naval (author of post) already did this with Angellist, in a way. They systematized the introduction of founders->angels. Which was happening freely over email beforehand. The service inbetween can add value over free methods.
Nothing wrong with that really as a starting point. Centralization is sometimes needed for trust. The angels may need to trust some escrow, dispute process, or software stability if they want to invest money this way.
But agreed it could technically be decentralized/free.