Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The $100M Deal for Kickstarter to use Blockchain

fortune.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 81 posts

Re: The $100M Deal for Kickstarter to use Blockchain

#11

Post by rsynnott »

CM30 wrote: post #6

Ah Kickstarter. I see why they tried the blockchain thing, but it probably wasn't the best decision for that particular company given their audience's utter disdain for crypto and web 3 in general. As for this: > The biggest problem for Kickstarter, though, may be that time has simply passed it by. “I feel like they just were left in the dust culturally" I'm not sure that's really the whole story. The story (at least…

I'm not sure they actually _had_ a critical problem, or at least didn't before the blockchain thing; it's just that it was a pretty limited market. AIUI they _were_ profitable, but they were never going to be a multi-billion dollar company. The blockchain thing did damage their reputation quite badly, while simultaneously showing that they weren't essential (big important creators were able to use something else.)

(It's _really_ weird that they gave up on attempting to compete with Patreon in a likely larger market, tho.)

Re: The $100M Deal for Kickstarter to use Blockchain

#12

Post by lostmsu »

gafferongames wrote: post #8
CM30 wrote: post #6

Ah Kickstarter. I see why they tried the blockchain thing, but it probably wasn't the best decision for that particular company given their audience's utter disdain for crypto and web 3 in general. As for this: > The biggest problem for Kickstarter, though, may be that time has simply passed it by. “I feel like they just were left in the dust culturally" I'm not sure that's really the whole story. The story (at least…

"The story (at least from what I can tell) is just that crowdfunding has developed a terrible reputation due to all the scams and failed promises from big name projects there, so people don't really take it seriously anymore." Sounds like a great fit for crypto!

[flagged]

Re: The $100M Deal for Kickstarter to use Blockchain

#14

Post by the__alchemist »

lostmsu wrote: post #12
gafferongames wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The story (at least from what I can tell) is just that crowdfunding has developed a terrible reputation due to all the scams and failed promises from big name projects there, so people don't really take it seriously anymore." Sounds like a great fit for crypto!

[flagged]

There are historically many scams associated with both, so it's a fair analogy. My recollection was that Kickstarter was a mix, and Indiegogo was 90%+ scams.

Re: The $100M Deal for Kickstarter to use Blockchain

#16

Post by roomey »

wlll wrote: post #10
rsynnott wrote: post #5

> The blockchain plan seemed impossible—and that would soon prove to be the case. As is tradition. (Did any company _ever_ launch anything borderline successful with The Almighty Blockchain(TM) that wasn't just some sort of token?)

I knew a guy who was trying to launch a DAO backed space based solar company. I'm pretty sure it went absolutely no-where.

That was a book as far as I know. Daniel Suarez's critical mass.

If it was done in real life too I'm actually at the point where I think that guy is a prophet ;)

Re: The $100M Deal for Kickstarter to use Blockchain

#17

Post by mritchie712 »

lostmsu wrote: post #12
gafferongames wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The story (at least from what I can tell) is just that crowdfunding has developed a terrible reputation due to all the scams and failed promises from big name projects there, so people don't really take it seriously anymore." Sounds like a great fit for crypto!

[flagged]

some blockchains (e.g. bitcoin) have been reliable, but you'd have to be joking to say "crypto" (as an industry) has been reliable.

Re: The $100M Deal for Kickstarter to use Blockchain

#18

Post by drdrek »

Years ago I backed two computer games. They both took about 5 years to be made and by the time they were ready I have already forgotten buying them. (They were good tho) Never felt the need to do that again.

Its a niche idea, unsuitable for VC money. On the other hand, non financial goals for companies almost always end badly. When you have more than one goal there is always an excuse for management to do what ever they want.

Want to do something for profits? we need this for the company survival. Want to do something financially irresponsible? Its aligned to our values. Unrelated to the core business? Social responsibility. Leave creative outlets to creative syndicates, leave charity work to non profits and leave money making to for profit companies... don't be another one of those that break the mold only to discover that people that came before you where not as dumb as you thought. Basically don't be Crypto.

Re: The $100M Deal for Kickstarter to use Blockchain

#19

Post by malfist »

lostmsu wrote: post #12
gafferongames wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The story (at least from what I can tell) is just that crowdfunding has developed a terrible reputation due to all the scams and failed promises from big name projects there, so people don't really take it seriously anymore." Sounds like a great fit for crypto!

[flagged]

Rug pulls and ponzi schemes not withstanding.

Re: The $100M Deal for Kickstarter to use Blockchain

#20

Post by jprete »

CM30 wrote: post #6

Ah Kickstarter. I see why they tried the blockchain thing, but it probably wasn't the best decision for that particular company given their audience's utter disdain for crypto and web 3 in general. As for this: > The biggest problem for Kickstarter, though, may be that time has simply passed it by. “I feel like they just were left in the dust culturally" I'm not sure that's really the whole story. The story (at least…

I agree with you!

I have some visibility into this space through the lens of "high-end" boardgaming (big boxes, frequently lots of minis, very high production value, and usually high time commitment to learn and play).

Crowdfunding's first use case was speculative investment in projects that might not ever succeed. I think this space has a big inherent trust deficit and Kickstarter can never solve it because Kickstarter will always have strong local incentives to not kick sketchy founders off of the platform, but Kickstarter is absorbing some of the loss of trust there because it's their platform.

There is another use case for crowdfunding - coordinating preorders of products that need enough orders to be worth a production run, but that are otherwise low-risk. This model works pretty well but Kickstarter also has competition from Backerkit in the space. I think Backerkit is also more focused on the safer use case of preorder coordination and less on the "speculative product" case.

Post reply on HN