Topic: z (Read 3138 times)
This thread is inspiring. I'm currently running a Kickstarter project and it's hard to get noticed in the crowd. A crowd-funded Bitcoin-centric game (as mentioned above by Electrongolf) is the perfect combination. I've created another topic to discuss a specific proposal.
Could you have an epaper bitcoin device ?
I imagine it would be great at displaying qr codes!
I imagine it would be great at displaying qr codes!
Explain?
We are also providing a kickstarter clone service, the site is undergoing Beta testing now:
http://bitcoinfunding.com/
http://bitcoinfunding.com/
I like the idea of crowdfunding. However, there is nothing to fund that needs bitcoin to function. Kickstarter is for creative ideas and products. A "bitcoin" project would just seem like advertising, and that's not what Kickstarter is about.
There's no need to even mention Bitcoin in a crowdfunded project. The utility of the product that uses btc should stand on it's own.
I would like to see a game that uses btc as currency. But, I think we need to get away from promoting 'Bitcoin' with every project. Let's promote useful products/services that need BTC to function.
There's no need to even mention Bitcoin in a crowdfunded project. The utility of the product that uses btc should stand on it's own.
I would like to see a game that uses btc as currency. But, I think we need to get away from promoting 'Bitcoin' with every project. Let's promote useful products/services that need BTC to function.
I don't think anyone is saying the product should be replaced by the novelty of bitcoin. The product should stand alone there is just a lot of benefits to offer up project for bitcoins. Keep in mind not all Bitcoin related projects should be funded this way ANY project can work this way.
Ah, yes. I interpreted OP's subject as Kickstarter crowdfunding bitcoins. I do hope to see a mainstream application for BTC. I like the idea of crowdfunding a few killer apps. Just need the ideas I guess.
I like the idea of crowdfunding. However, there is nothing to fund that needs bitcoin to function. Kickstarter is for creative ideas and products. A "bitcoin" project would just seem like advertising, and that's not what Kickstarter is about.
There's no need to even mention Bitcoin in a crowdfunded project. The utility of the product that uses btc should stand on it's own.
I would like to see a game that uses btc as currency. But, I think we need to get away from promoting 'Bitcoin' with every project. Let's promote useful products/services that need BTC to function.
There's no need to even mention Bitcoin in a crowdfunded project. The utility of the product that uses btc should stand on it's own.
I would like to see a game that uses btc as currency. But, I think we need to get away from promoting 'Bitcoin' with every project. Let's promote useful products/services that need BTC to function.
I don't think anyone is saying the product should be replaced by the novelty of bitcoin. The product should stand alone there is just a lot of benefits to offer up projects for bitcoins. Keep in mind not all Bitcoin related projects should be funded this way ANY project can work this way.
I like the idea of crowdfunding. However, there is nothing to fund that needs bitcoin to function. Kickstarter is for creative ideas and products. A "bitcoin" project would just seem like advertising, and that's not what Kickstarter is about.
There's no need to even mention Bitcoin in a crowdfunded project. The utility of the product that uses btc should stand on it's own.
I would like to see a game that uses btc as currency. But, I think we need to get away from promoting 'Bitcoin' with every project. Let's promote useful products/services that need BTC to function.
There's no need to even mention Bitcoin in a crowdfunded project. The utility of the product that uses btc should stand on it's own.
I would like to see a game that uses btc as currency. But, I think we need to get away from promoting 'Bitcoin' with every project. Let's promote useful products/services that need BTC to function.
Quote
Unfortunately, Kickstarter declined our project. They didn’t really say why. They just said “Unfortunately, this isn’t the right fit for Kickstarter.” Of course, this isn’t entirely surprising. Kickstarter is a pretty friendly company. And I can’t say I blame them. After quitting my job, I briefly thought of starting up this project on my own, funding it on my own. I got really excited about it for a couple of weeks, but then I realized I am an intensely social person and, besides, I didn’t want to be “that guy.”
But the need, I am convinced, still exists. And so, I give it to you, world. Someone, please, start an anti-social network. I will kick into your seed round.
But the need, I am convinced, still exists. And so, I give it to you, world. Someone, please, start an anti-social network. I will kick into your seed round.
- http://www.betabeat.com/2012/04/17/a-call-for-an-anti-social-network/
I'ld like to emphasize:
Unfortunately, this isn’t the right fit for Kickstarter.
So KickStarter decides what its wants to push to its userbase. It has the full right to do so, I'm just pointing it out that there are many good ideas that never get their 15 minutes.
Yes, actually I had project declined for that very reason. I had a email exchange with the guy and it wasn't pleasant. This is why I've never gone back to kickstarter.
Quote
Unfortunately, Kickstarter declined our project. They didn’t really say why. They just said “Unfortunately, this isn’t the right fit for Kickstarter.” Of course, this isn’t entirely surprising. Kickstarter is a pretty friendly company. And I can’t say I blame them. After quitting my job, I briefly thought of starting up this project on my own, funding it on my own. I got really excited about it for a couple of weeks, but then I realized I am an intensely social person and, besides, I didn’t want to be “that guy.”
But the need, I am convinced, still exists. And so, I give it to you, world. Someone, please, start an anti-social network. I will kick into your seed round.
But the need, I am convinced, still exists. And so, I give it to you, world. Someone, please, start an anti-social network. I will kick into your seed round.
- http://www.betabeat.com/2012/04/17/a-call-for-an-anti-social-network/
I'ld like to emphasize:
Unfortunately, this isn’t the right fit for Kickstarter.
So KickStarter decides what its wants to push to its userbase. It has the full right to do so, I'm just pointing it out that there are many good ideas that never get their 15 minutes.
2.8 MILLION USD!
Passed my previous favorite almost instantly.
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/inxile/wasteland-2
Passed my previous favorite almost instantly.
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/inxile/wasteland-2
Just really incredible
still going! 
2.8 MILLION USD!
Passed my previous favorite almost instantly.
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/inxile/wasteland-2
Passed my previous favorite almost instantly.
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/inxile/wasteland-2
i don't understand what would be funded that would create so much mass appeal?
Did you look at it? It's an e-paper watch that connects via bluetooth to your phone.All they have to know is "a no-fee merchant solution".
Seems to be some dust up over on Kickstarter regarding a project creator getting banned:
HackerNews
Reddit
She tweeted she is looking for an alternative for some projects down the line:
So I tweeted her back. Its this sort of stuff that can help break-through a bitcoin only project we'll see what she says.
Update kickstarter apologizes: http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/04/14/crowdfunding-site-kickstarter-accused-of-banning-artist-who-received-too-much-comment-spam/
HackerNews
She tweeted she is looking for an alternative for some projects down the line:
So I tweeted her back. Its this sort of stuff that can help break-through a bitcoin only project we'll see what she says.
Update kickstarter apologizes: http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/04/14/crowdfunding-site-kickstarter-accused-of-banning-artist-who-received-too-much-comment-spam/
So when can we send bitcoins via bluetooth to someone elses watch ?
Would be awesome to show a qr code of your address on the watch. There's an SDK so I'm sure people will come up with all sorts of cool things 
This kickstarter-led crowdfunding model really forced a change we're experiencing with the securities industry in the U.S.
Years ago this fundraising model would have gotten shut down -- preselling products to the general public before you have the ability to ship the product was a violation of securities laws. Then KickStarter (which is very well connected to venture capital) came along and created the concept of raising funds as donations with some type of reward as a result, and gained big traction for the model.
But now, this Pebble project thing is purely a marketing effort. If Pebble wanted capital, they could easily have raised it (or may have done so already). Here they get to sell a ton of product and don't need to give up any equity to be able to get the financing they need to be able to place the order for a large production run.
I'm not saying this is bad, I'm just pointing out this is not what what KickStarter started out being and is something likely to still be in the "gray area" of whether or not this preselling violates existing securities law in the U.S.. Even the new JOBS act with its equity crowdfunding provisions doesn't change this -- taking money for the pre-sale of product is still not allowed. Perhaps KickStarter gets by doing this by being able to step in to return the payments if a Pebble were to end up being a fraud or something like that, I don't know.
- http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3828293
I don't like how this seems to be something that appears to be allowed when it is a big corporation (KickStarter ... well not really big, but backed by big venture capital money) doing it but for you and I it is different. Try as an individual doing the same thing that Pebble is currently doing through KickStarter and I wonder how many days before PayPal steals your funds (well, not steal but freeze funds for 6 months), without you having any recourse.
So either change the flippin law, or enforce it.
Years ago this fundraising model would have gotten shut down -- preselling products to the general public before you have the ability to ship the product was a violation of securities laws. Then KickStarter (which is very well connected to venture capital) came along and created the concept of raising funds as donations with some type of reward as a result, and gained big traction for the model.
But now, this Pebble project thing is purely a marketing effort. If Pebble wanted capital, they could easily have raised it (or may have done so already). Here they get to sell a ton of product and don't need to give up any equity to be able to get the financing they need to be able to place the order for a large production run.
I'm not saying this is bad, I'm just pointing out this is not what what KickStarter started out being and is something likely to still be in the "gray area" of whether or not this preselling violates existing securities law in the U.S.. Even the new JOBS act with its equity crowdfunding provisions doesn't change this -- taking money for the pre-sale of product is still not allowed. Perhaps KickStarter gets by doing this by being able to step in to return the payments if a Pebble were to end up being a fraud or something like that, I don't know.
- http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3828293
I don't like how this seems to be something that appears to be allowed when it is a big corporation (KickStarter ... well not really big, but backed by big venture capital money) doing it but for you and I it is different. Try as an individual doing the same thing that Pebble is currently doing through KickStarter and I wonder how many days before PayPal steals your funds (well, not steal but freeze funds for 6 months), without you having any recourse.
So either change the flippin law, or enforce it.
Stephen, you are right on point. The Pebble project was a pure marketing play on their part. They were already venture backed by being in the YC program basically. This was to find out just how much product they could sell. As for your point regarding the JOBS act and donation style model aka Kickstarter did force the hand of the SEC/Politicians to take another look at the situation and with the current climate we are in who wouldn't want to put a feather in their cap for "producing more jobs". This is yet to be scene of course.
Right now, technically Kickstarter is boarding on being illegal the "gray area" you mentioned above. There are MANY reasons why what they are doing is illegal. The reason they haven't been taken out by someone from what they are doing is nobody wants to "look like" they are stifling innovation and ideas. I mean who wants to be tied to doing that ? and as long as fraud remains pretty low nobody is going to come barking up that tree.
As for bitcoinstarter right now we are project/product-oriented more so then Business/Startup oriented (GLSBE.com) is more suited to handle this arena. We are glancing over what we can do in regards to the JOBS Act but that won't be down the line.
Great insight because you are spot on!
This kickstarter-led crowdfunding model really forced a change we're experiencing with the securities industry in the U.S.
Years ago this fundraising model would have gotten shut down -- preselling products to the general public before you have the ability to ship the product was a violation of securities laws. Then KickStarter (which is very well connected to venture capital) came along and created the concept of raising funds as donations with some type of reward as a result, and gained big traction for the model.
But now, this Pebble project thing is purely a marketing effort. If Pebble wanted capital, they could easily have raised it (or may have done so already). Here they get to sell a ton of product and don't need to give up any equity to be able to get the financing they need to be able to place the order for a large production run.
I'm not saying this is bad, I'm just pointing out this is not what what KickStarter started out being and is something likely to still be in the "gray area" of whether or not this preselling violates existing securities law in the U.S.. Even the new JOBS act with its equity crowdfunding provisions doesn't change this -- taking money for the pre-sale of product is still not allowed. Perhaps KickStarter gets by doing this by being able to step in to return the payments if a Pebble were to end up being a fraud or something like that, I don't know.
- http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3828293
I don't like how this seems to be something that appears to be allowed when it is a big corporation (KickStarter ... well not really big, but backed by big venture capital money) doing it but for you and I it is different. Try as an individual doing the same thing that Pebble is currently doing through KickStarter and I wonder how many days before PayPal steals your funds (well, not steal but freeze funds for 6 months), without you having any recourse.
So either change the flippin law, or enforce it.
Years ago this fundraising model would have gotten shut down -- preselling products to the general public before you have the ability to ship the product was a violation of securities laws. Then KickStarter (which is very well connected to venture capital) came along and created the concept of raising funds as donations with some type of reward as a result, and gained big traction for the model.
But now, this Pebble project thing is purely a marketing effort. If Pebble wanted capital, they could easily have raised it (or may have done so already). Here they get to sell a ton of product and don't need to give up any equity to be able to get the financing they need to be able to place the order for a large production run.
I'm not saying this is bad, I'm just pointing out this is not what what KickStarter started out being and is something likely to still be in the "gray area" of whether or not this preselling violates existing securities law in the U.S.. Even the new JOBS act with its equity crowdfunding provisions doesn't change this -- taking money for the pre-sale of product is still not allowed. Perhaps KickStarter gets by doing this by being able to step in to return the payments if a Pebble were to end up being a fraud or something like that, I don't know.
- http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3828293
I don't like how this seems to be something that appears to be allowed when it is a big corporation (KickStarter ... well not really big, but backed by big venture capital money) doing it but for you and I it is different. Try as an individual doing the same thing that Pebble is currently doing through KickStarter and I wonder how many days before PayPal steals your funds (well, not steal but freeze funds for 6 months), without you having any recourse.
So either change the flippin law, or enforce it.
i don't understand what would be funded that would create so much mass appeal?
Did you look at it? It's an e-paper watch that connects via bluetooth to your phone.yeah this. the watch is cool as hell.
Oh, yes, that makes sense. I agree, I can't think of anything that would catch the general public's interest, and make them want to "invest" in it.
Two things:
- that site should accept bitcoin pledges
- the amounts pledged and the speed at which they gathered capital
is 2 orders of magnitude larger than equivalent crowdfunding projects
in the BTC world. I wish we could match that by finding a niche project
that would indeed attract the general public's attention.
So here is the thing that I'll be doing a write-up about on the bitcoinstarter blog very soon in regards to my new venture bitcoinstarter.com and basically spells out the "secret sauce" .
I believe one tipping point for bitcoin going mainstream could be just this - You create a bitcoin-only-product which helps incentivize the reason to even get into bitcoin. I mean if this Pebble E-Paper Watch was Bitcoin only just imagine the amount of attention that would bring to bitcoin. So in theory it is possible. My job will be to attract such projects to the bitcoin community and bring in the unique -one-off products that should tip the balance in bitcoins favor.
Any thoughts or suggestions or ideas on how to do this do let me know! I suppose this is as good of time to discuss these sort of things.
However, I really hope you can work something out, because you are completely correct that a stellar Bitcoin-only product would bring a ton of attention towards Bitcoin.
In my opinion, I don't think it would be that hard or I wouldn't be doing this
. Just the novelty of bitcoin and the people in the community would drive someone to "check it out" or at the very least have a traditional system in place along with a bitcoin system ( paralleled to a fiat system ) going simultaneously. A lot of people who do these sort of donation model systems are artsy and creative and most likely libertarian so the perfect sort of crowd you would want to be flocking to bitcoin.
In fact, I know for a fact there is interest in bitcoin only projects because I get told of them all the time - now its just a matter of getting the "main stream" to pick up on it and blog about it everywhere and of course the project has to be worthy also.
I see your concern though about "getting people in" to actually support a project via BTC but I think there is a way to solve that for which can't reveal it right now! but also if a project is so compelling it just *might* be worth the hassle. So I'm thinking about all the things you mentioned and how to solve it. Great feedback SgtSpike!
edit: btw should have mentioned some key incentives for project creators to go with Bitcoin would be:
- can accept international projects and payments
- keep more of the money you receive because fees are cheaper
- can be as "anonymous" as you want
Also this is how kickstarter got the ball rolling : http://www.quora.com/Why-did-KickStarter-succeed-where-all-other-crowd-funding-platforms-failed
Oh, yes, that makes sense. I agree, I can't think of anything that would catch the general public's interest, and make them want to "invest" in it.
Two things:
- that site should accept bitcoin pledges
- the amounts pledged and the speed at which they gathered capital
is 2 orders of magnitude larger than equivalent crowdfunding projects
in the BTC world. I wish we could match that by finding a niche project
that would indeed attract the general public's attention.
So here is the thing that I'll be doing a write-up about on the bitcoinstarter blog very soon in regards to my new venture bitcoinstarter.com and basically spells out the "secret sauce" .
I believe one tipping point for bitcoin going mainstream could be just this - You create a bitcoin-only-product which helps incentivize the reason to even get into bitcoin. I mean if this Pebble E-Paper Watch was Bitcoin only just imagine the amount of attention that would bring to bitcoin. So in theory it is possible. My job will be to attract such projects to the bitcoin community and bring in the unique -one-off products that should tip the balance in bitcoins favor.
Any thoughts or suggestions or ideas on how to do this do let me know! I suppose this is as good of time to discuss these sort of things.
However, I really hope you can work something out, because you are completely correct that a stellar Bitcoin-only product would bring a ton of attention towards Bitcoin.
Jump to: