Earlier quoted context omitted.
[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.
As a generator of wealth, it has been very reliable.
The $100M Deal for Kickstarter to use Blockchain
31–40 of 81 posts
Re: The $100M Deal for Kickstarter to use Blockchain
#32Ah 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 Kickstar…
Incorrect. Crowdfunding's first use case was financing production of an invention.
The speculative investment stuff was the scam Kickstarter cultivated in the chase for infinite growth and VC returns. Crowdfunding from the general public for investment is generally illegal for exactly this rest.
Re: The $100M Deal for Kickstarter to use Blockchain
#33Ah 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…
Frankly, this is nonsense. Total funds going to projects has gone up over time. I support artists on Kickstarter frequently. What has likely happened is that Kickstarter's investors realized that it wasn't going to make them as much money as they'd like, nothing more.
Re: The $100M Deal for Kickstarter to use Blockchain
#34Re: The $100M Deal for Kickstarter to use Blockchain
#35If I needed to launder money, I would think running crypto through a Kickstater project would be a good way to do it. At least below a certain threshold where you don't create significant scrutiny.
Re: The $100M Deal for Kickstarter to use Blockchain
#36I think this is what a lot of people don't get about taking funding from a VC: > The grand but improbable plan called for shifting its entire platform onto a blockchain called Celo, another a16z portfolio company (emphasis added) I was at an advertising startup which got a massive investment from SoftBank. One of the people involved in signing the deal told me that the main benefit wasn't the $$$; it was that the oth…
It's a terrible idea (for the companies) that sounds clever.
It's one thing to offer your product to "friend" companies for dogfood feedback. But pressuring stablemates to use the product creates a fake product market for that distracts from building good product, and invites the investor to sacrifice your company to help a different one. But you don't have stock in that other company, do you? If you want the companies to share fate, merge companies.
Re: The $100M Deal for Kickstarter to use Blockchain
#37Ah 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…
> Although, even Patreon has this issue, since there is no hard requirement to be showing your work regularly
I'm sure different people use Patreon differently, but there's never really been a trust problem with Patreon for me because the sums are so small and I can stop paying whenever I like.
People on kickstarter are understandably salty when they pay $350 for a chair and it doesn't show up.
But if I pay someone $5/month for youtube videos and their output slows down or drops in quality, I can just stop paying, and keep getting the videos for free on youtube.
Re: The $100M Deal for Kickstarter to use Blockchain
#38Ah 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…
Kickstarter did have a ton of scams, but my favorite "rise from the ashes" story was the ZPM Espresso machine. ZPM promised a revolutionary espresso machine that used a precisely controlled thermoblock (instead of a boiler) to control temperatures accurately.
I don't think ZPM was an intentional scam, but the founders got in way over their heads, and when the popularity of the product exploded, they then had to figure out all these volume manufacturing problems as opposed to just building some prototypes for a small number of backers (there is a cautionary tale about startups taking too much VC money in here somewhere...) Anyway, ZPM crashed and burned, and as far as I know none of the backers got their money back. Again, I don't think it was really a scam, all that money was just spent on things for the project. I don't think anyone got their machine, but maybe a few folks did, not sure.
Anyway, another company, Decent Espresso, came along and bought out ZPM's patents (note, backers still received nothing afaik), but now the Decent machine is an absolute marvel, with temperature and pressure profiling capabilities that are nuts. The machine is also not cheap (the original promise of ZPM), but it's still cool that in the world of so much BS where scammers produce nothing of value (cough Theranos cough), that at least in this case something really cool came of it.
Re: The $100M Deal for Kickstarter to use Blockchain
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
some blockchains (e.g. bitcoin) have been reliable, but you'd have to be joking to say "crypto" (as an industry) has been reliable.
As a generator of wealth, it has been very reliable.
Not at all, it's largely grift-based wealth which by definition means there are more losers than winners
Re: The $100M Deal for Kickstarter to use Blockchain
#40Didn'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.
Pre-profitability, in the charitable phase of VC startup, before it collapsed under the chase for return.