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

21–30 of 81 posts

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

#21

Post by nottorp »

The article oozes an obsession with growth. Even before the blockchain incident. Which ruins any Kickstarter credibility btw.

Wouldn't Kickstarter have been fine if they just didn't take outside investment and just stayed a small entity bringing financing to some small projects and making some extra money in the process?

Why compete with Patreon? Personally I would and have thrown a one time few $ to computer game projects I was interested in on most crowdfunding platforms. But I'll never pay for a subscription.

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

#22

Post by bcrosby95 »

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…

Crowdfunding is big in the table top rpg industry. Lots of small companies used it for new products and even reprints.

But for the past 6 months or so, they've been slowly moving to backerkit. Including a $4mil funding of one of them: https://www.backerkit.com/c/projects/mcdm-productions/mcdm-r...

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

#23

Post by bmer »

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…

Although, even Patreon has this issue, since there is no hard requirement to be showing your work regularly; just more of an expectation due to the design of the system.

Part of this seems to be due to the reality of creative work: you need to be willing to fund failures as much as successes, or you'll end up getting more-of-the-same rather than something new. E.g. existing creators with well-established patron bases can feel pressured to make more-of-the-same, rather than experimenting, leading to their burnout.

The other part of it seems to honestly be gullibility (on the part of backers) and lack of focus on realistic, achievable goals ("go small, then incrementally bigger") from those seeking funding. The normalization/glorification of advertising culture (e.g. "fake it till you make it") is a non-trivial contributor to this issue, ultimately making it difficult to distinguish between grifters and people who drank the kool-aid.

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

#24

Post by nottorp »

drdrek wrote: post #18

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 t…

> 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.

What's wrong with that? I've backed more than two games. Some were good, some were bad, some failed completely. But I knew that from the beginning. And I just prepaid for the games at a discount, I didn't buy $5000 packages or anything like that.

I might do that again, but every game I picked was mentioned in the gaming press, so was promising enough to get their attention. I haven't seen that lately. No mention of kickstarter, indiegogo, gofundme or whatever else is out there.

Is it because game makers don't crowdfund any more, or because the press only covers AAAs now?

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

#25

Post by CPLX »

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]

Poe's Law strikes again.

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

#26

Post by eterm »

helsinkiandrew wrote: post #15

Didn't know that the original Fleabag Edinburgh show was funded on Kickstarter. The video is worth watching if you've seen it/the TV adaptation: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/drywrite/fleabag

Over 10 years ago, back when Kickstarter was having it's moment.

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

#27

Post by corytheboyd »

pavlov wrote: post #7
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?)

> "Did any company _ever_ launch anything borderline successful with The Almighty Blockchain(TM) that wasn't just some sort of token?" No. But that only makes the goal more alluring: "We could be the first company to make this work and unlock the untold riches of Blockchain as foretold by prophecy and the iron will of cryptographic destiny!" Enough venture capitalists seem to have the faith too, to keep the money flo…

> Enough venture capitalists seem to have the faith too, to keep the money flowing despite lack of traction.

They only need to win once. When you’re the chip leader, you can afford to throw down some big bets and lose.

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

#28

Post by yieldcrv »

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?)

The answer to your question is yes, but you didn’t notice because there was no token, the answer to your next question is no, it probably doesn’t match your definition of success and it doesn’t matter that you weren’t the market for it

as the point is that tokens are very effective advertising engines

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

#29

Post by Goronmon »

nottorp wrote: post #24
drdrek wrote: post #18

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 t…

> 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. What's wrong with that? I've backed more than two games. Some were good, some were bad, some failed completely. But I knew that from the beginning. And I just prepaid for the games at a discount, I didn't buy $5000 packages or anything like that. I…

What's wrong with that?

For me it comes down to numbers. I don't want for games to play. I already lack the time to play all the games I am interested in.

And that's for games that have been released that are a relatively known result.

What advantage is there for me to throw money at hypothetical games that in the future may result in something I am interested in playing? Especially when there is a decent chance nothing gets released at all?

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

#30

Post by rtkwe »

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…

Pure anecdata but I've backed ~180 projects on KS and I've only had If you're a bit choosier about the things you back you can get pretty good results from the site.
Post reply on HN