51–60 of 86 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes I developed a SaaS and the functionality is solely based on output from OpenAI. We have several thousand paying users already with ARR above $1.5M
Making $900k in the first 3 week it means monetize on the wow-effects. Is it https://prompthero.com/ ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When you say handing out money like candy, it makes me think I should try to apply to something. I am spending most of my time doing low-paying contracts that integrate generative AI for other companies or startups. And then I use that money to build out my own project for a few weeks before I run out of money and have to get another contract. If it's actually easy to get money? How would I find a VC who would be imp…
It's easy, but you have to wonder if it is really what you want. Your chances of seeing it through to the end are probably the same as every other start-up and taking VC money comes with a ton of strings attached. More about this: https://jacquesmattheij.com/three-roads-to-the-top-of-the-mo...
I think I have been ineffectually following something like the "third road" for ten years already. Although in my case maybe instead of a road up a stately mountain, it's more like getting lost in a ghetto, because I do not seem to progress beyond the low-paying contracts or get any significant interest in my startup attempts. Probably I have just gotten used to them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have to be a bit of a charlatan to really get the money. If you’re not willing to do that then maybe it’s not for you.
Well.. I guess I have had the impression that people who get investments or grants are often better at convincing people to give them money than actually solving problems. But can you elaborate on why you put it like that, "a bit of a charlatan"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If it were useful they’d actually use it. It is being used and businesses are using it in their products today. Companies like Moneygram would not use Stellar if it was useless for them and their customers and would instead announce that they are shutting it down after trialling it. They seem to have seen utility in it for their use-case. The same can be said for the other companies I mentioned. Again, they are usi…
> Companies like Moneygram would not use Stellar if it was useless for them Useless, not worthless. I happen to be familiar with that case. It’s great for sales. Useless for performance. (It might become useful one day.) Hence, marginal-enough adoption and a lot of marketing. A couple years ago I counselled a friend in banking to do something with Ripple. It helped him win deals with crypto firms, and likely helped t…
Nope. Useful today for people using Moneygram worldwide (In the example I gave). Moneygram used Stellar for their own use-case and its customers use it today for that same utility, but this time with no bank accounts for the end user.
> A couple years ago I counselled a friend in banking to do something with Ripple. It helped him win deals with crypto firms, and likely helped their wealth managers, too. Worthful. But useless.
Now with Stellar today, it is used by many businesses like Moneygram, and aid programmes [0] are trailing the network [1] for the same use-case. Again, it would not be used by such organizations or even trailed or piloted in the first place if it was 'Useless for performance.' or had no utility.
[0] https://stellar.org/aidassist
[1] https://stellar.org/press-releases/unhcr-launches-pilot-cash...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Companies like Moneygram would not use Stellar if it was useless for them Useless, not worthless. I happen to be familiar with that case. It’s great for sales. Useless for performance. (It might become useful one day.) Hence, marginal-enough adoption and a lot of marketing. A couple years ago I counselled a friend in banking to do something with Ripple. It helped him win deals with crypto firms, and likely helped t…
> Useless, not worthless. I happen to be familiar with that case. It’s great for sales. Useless for performance. (It might become useful one day.) Hence, marginal-enough adoption and a lot of marketing. Nope. Useful today for people using Moneygram worldwide (In the example I gave). Moneygram used Stellar for their own use-case and its customers use it today for that same utility, but this time with no bank accounts…
Moneygram originated with cash or money order in, cash or money order out. No bank account needed.
> with Stellar today, it is used by many businesses like Moneygram, and aid programmes
You’re linking to a pilot. As it happens, I also worked with UNDP years ago. We similarly launched pilots to try and find uses for novel technologies. (Mine was in mobility data from cell phones.)
That’s what’s happening here. They are looking for a use. That should be encouraged. Looking for something doesn’t mean it is found.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's easy, but you have to wonder if it is really what you want. Your chances of seeing it through to the end are probably the same as every other start-up and taking VC money comes with a ton of strings attached. More about this: https://jacquesmattheij.com/three-roads-to-the-top-of-the-mo...
Thanks for the link to the article. It's a great article. My interpretation of your response is that you would suggest I do not try to get any investment and rather continue to do the contracts, but otherwise following the specific advice on the "third road" from the article. I think I have been ineffectually following something like the "third road" for ten years already. Although in my case maybe instead of a road…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well.. I guess I have had the impression that people who get investments or grants are often better at convincing people to give them money than actually solving problems. But can you elaborate on why you put it like that, "a bit of a charlatan"?
You have to be willing to tell them what they want to hear and hit the right notes, even if you know it’s not necessarily true or accurate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Useless, not worthless. I happen to be familiar with that case. It’s great for sales. Useless for performance. (It might become useful one day.) Hence, marginal-enough adoption and a lot of marketing. Nope. Useful today for people using Moneygram worldwide (In the example I gave). Moneygram used Stellar for their own use-case and its customers use it today for that same utility, but this time with no bank accounts…
> but this time with no bank accounts for the end user Moneygram originated with cash or money order in, cash or money order out. No bank account needed. > with Stellar today, it is used by many businesses like Moneygram, and aid programmes You’re linking to a pilot. As it happens, I also worked with UNDP years ago. We similarly launched pilots to try and find uses for novel technologies. (Mine was in mobility data f…
Even better, meaning that the smart decision was to add another rails (crypto) which after choosing something like Stellar and trailing it, they found it was useful for them and their customers, to continue using it. Otherwise it would have been scrapped years ago.
> That’s what’s happening here. They are looking for a use. That should be encouraged. Looking for something doesn’t mean it is found.
Indeed, it is a pilot which means more interest in the use-case which was found AFTER Moneygram trialled it and are using it right now today.
The same is said about the other companies I mentioned. Far from the first broad claim of it all being 'useless' which we all know that is blatantly false.
I can't wait to see this bubble bursting spectacularly.
I can't wait to see this bubble bursting spectacularly.
A great opportunity to sell then during the rush in capital from the VCs throwing money at any company filled with AI buzzwords before it all collapses.