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

41–50 of 81 posts

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

#41

Post by aeturnum »

Goronmon wrote: post #29
nottorp wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 noth…

I totally agree that, if you can't think of why you might want to support one particular future game over another, then kickstarter is not for you. However, lots of people like the work of particular creators, or like particular genres, or are looking for particular gameplay approaches. Those people may all think about funding certain games in development over others.

Just in general you might prefer to support some futures over others, and if that's your, kickstarter (and similar services) would appeal.

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

#42

Post by HideousKojima »

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?)

Silk Road? But as far as legal things go I'm drawing a blank.

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

#43

Post by allannienhuis »

k33n wrote: post #31
mritchie712 wrote: post #17

Earlier 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.

I think it's worse than that - as far as I can see it's only moves wealth from one pocket to another. Usually many pockets to few pockets. I've not heard of how it's increasing labor efficiency or enabling completely new capabilities for anyone, with maybe a few minor exceptions. So its really a pretty successful parasite.

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

#44

Post by hanniabu »

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?)

Farcaster

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

#45

Post by paxys »

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…

While I'm sure some percentage of Kickstarters were outright scams, in general it is always a bad idea to push "investments" on people who cannot grasp the fact that 90%+ of them will fail despite the best efforts of the founders. That's just how any new venture works.

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

#46

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#47

Post by the_sleaze9 »

malfist wrote: post #19
lostmsu wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Rug pulls and ponzi schemes not withstanding.

I agree with this interpretation - after all ponzis, scams, vapor ware, and rug pulls existed long before trust-less distributed ledger software.

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

#48

Post by nicwolff »

bmer wrote: post #23
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…

Most Patreons also offer per-episode payment, which zeroes out the risk that you'll pay a non-producing creator anything at all.

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

#49

Post by flir »

rtkwe wrote: post #30
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.

That's an insane number (to me). What do you consider to be your "best buy"?

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

#50

Post by kiicia »

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?)

Bloclchain is still an answer to question no one knows
Post reply on HN