9 ms·

What about Kickstarter? A $500 million+ company that takes a 5% vig on all transacted funds can effectively be replaced with a few lines of code. If total ETH

What about Kickstarter? A $500 million+ company that takes a 5% vig on all transacted funds can effectively be replaced with a few lines of code. If total ETH sent to contract address by date X > Amount Y then send the ETH to the fundraiser, else return the ETH.

foota 9y ago
It's true that the underlying payment systems could (should?) be built this way, but imo that's a very small portion of what most websites do.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
InclinedPlane 9y ago
Sure. Sure. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224
tribby 9y ago
without the 5%, kickstarter would not be a successful marketing platform. financial transactions are just part of what they do.
- stingrae 9y ago
  I think the 5% doesn't even include the financial transaction which is another 3% that goes to stripe. People give Kickstarter the 5% for the marketing and trust the platform tries to build.
  - spookthesunset 9y ago
    I doubt kickstarter pays 3% in fees...
    - stingrae 9y ago
      They don't. That was the point. It is really 5% + 3%.
jerguismi 9y ago
Was tested with bitcoin: https://github.com/vinumeris/lighthouse https://github.com/vinumeris/lighthouse I'm sceptical about the use-case. Collecting money for the projects is so much about other things as well, not just the money collection phase - you need a services around it, it is not just the payment collection. That said, I think it would be quite useful for kickstarter to accept btc/eth.
- chatmasta 9y ago
  Exactly. The problem is that even if the core service can be replicated in a decentralized manner on the blockchain, any periphery services (discussion boards, dispute resolution) need to exist in some centralized place, developed and maintained by some centralized entity. Hell, even the crypto code itself needs to be developed/maintained by someone. It's hard to avoid centralization when somebody has to do the work of maintaining the platform, because maintenance costs money, which requires stakeholders, who will not pass up an opportunity to "collect rent" if the platform has any sort of network lock-in.
mrep 9y ago
Then why has nobody done that then? It blows my mind how so many people proliferate how useful blockchain companies can be yet despite all of the different blockchains, ICO's..., practically none [1] have taken off because they are technologically and economically worse than current market products and services. [1]: Illegal markets are the only market I have seen that do like it because companies/governments have specifically made it harder for illegal transactions to take place over traditional currencies.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- darawk 9y ago
  Nobody has done it because it's inefficient right now, and the ecosystem is still only trusted by a relatively small minority of nerds like myself and others here. This proposal is a solution to one of those problems.
  - weego 9y ago
    Why will the future change the level of inefficiency?
    - bhouston 9y ago
      Proof of stake should increase efficiency a lot.
    - darawk 9y ago
      That's what the link in the OP is all about. Plasma + Proof of Stake should mean an efficient, scalable blockchain for smart contracts.
  - mrep 9y ago
    When will it ever be efficient? All blockchains rely on re-computing the same transaction across many different entities due to mistrust. However, despite the common sentiment that computers are cheap; at scale, the are definitely not. Every additional computation to validate something increases the cost of business and 99% of businesses are cutthroat when it comes to cost. Add in the other downsides/costs of crypto.* (my insights on the downsides of blockchain specifically: hard to use, one way transactions, high transfer costs due to low block size, super easy to get hacked and lose all your money...) and it's no wonder they are all failing. 99.999% of the time, the costs outway the benefits.
will_brown 9y ago
You do know people can launch a crowdfunding project that is decentralized, They don't need an ICO or blockchain, just a website. But there is a reason people don't do that, something to do with the value centralized platforms provide. Plus I'm not entirely sure anyone should trust smart contracts to actually perform such a function, next thing you know someone other than the project created takes all the funds pursuant to the smart contract, but hey that's the beauty of a smart contract it's infallible, so what ever it does it was intended to do, be damned with what people thought and understood it would do.
- ge96 9y ago
  The concept of decentralized apps, where does the initial copy come from that is then installed/copied onto other devices? (time to go read)
  - will_brown 9y ago
    Maybe I'm wrong about my understanding....but maybe you are confusing decentralized with distributed.
    - ge96 9y ago
      I'm pretty sure that I am unsure of what I'm talking about. Time to go read.
phlo 9y ago
The part of Kickstarter you're describing isn't worth any significant fraction of these $500m. If it were, Indiegogo, Gofundme and all others in the space would need to be well on the unicorn track. A saying goes "Ideas are cheap, execution is everything". That's where this value of $500m comes in. It's in the brand reputation the company has built. In the traffic they generate by people browsing their site and discovering projects they might back. In the UI they've set up, and most of all, it's in the trust that they actually do some amount of quality checking. In the thought that projects on Kickstarter stand a better chance of executing than projects on competitor's sites. You can get someone to write the necessary code for "if funded send to x, else return funds" on any freelance site for a four-digit amount, whether you want it in Solidity or PHP. That's the easy part. The hard part then is building a better platform, policing the projects on there, ensuring quality and attracting backers.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- IanCal 9y ago
  > You can get someone to write the necessary code for "if funded send to x, else return funds" on any freelance site for a four-digit amount Can you do so in a way that I as a funder don't need to trust you the intermediary?
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > Can you do so in a way that I as a funder don't need to trust you the intermediary? No, and you can't with smart contracts either (the intermediary being the creator of the contract), unless funders are restricted to people with the skill to analyze the contract code. As proven by the DAO. And even if you could, you've replaced only a small-and-useless-in-isolation piece of Kickstarter by doing so.
    - IanCal 9y ago
      It moves the trust to the code rather than the entity. Code analysis does not need to be done by all, either. I'm not saying it's the entirety of kickstarter but I think you're being overly dismissive of the concept. It could work well for things like bug or feature bounties, or other similar situations where having a company to sit in the middle and hold cash requires building up too much reputation than it is worth. Running costs become just the transaction & code running costs on whatever network you're using too.
shp0ngle 9y ago
There was a platform called Lighthouse, made by Mike Hearn (developer of Bitcoinj and Bitcoin XT). It wasn't very popular or very user friendly, I think the development stopped one year ago
nemild 9y ago
This thinking is a common mistake I see from teams that think only about tech. User acquisition is critical in the success of marketplaces. Usability is often ignored too. Even today, if you create an eBay (granted, a much stickier marketplace than Kickstarter) with no fees, it's not as simple as throwing the doors open and expecting everyone to switch. You can read more here, in a different example I dig into (Slack vs IRC): https://www.nemil.com/musings/oss-and-slack.html https://www.nemil.com/musings/oss-and-slack.html If you ever want, I'm happy to have the debate with you (email in profile). If you really want to compete, you're going to need to be aware of what it'll really take to win, not just decentralized/blockchain and no fees. (And as a nit, I can also build a website in a week that takes 2% credit card vig without blockchain - sure I know you'll argue that I can raise the price later, but I'm still not going to win against Kickstarter without something more than just a cheaper price)
justicezyx 9y ago
In my imagination, I can replace anything with some equivalent and cost much less. But how? How can you replace kickstarter with a few lines of code? Through your wonderful imagination that can bend reality? Or through your convincing argument that kickerstarter volunteered to turn itself into a few lines of code. Or what?
dragonwriter 9y ago
> What about Kickstarter? A $500 million+ company that takes a 5% vig on all transacted funds can effectively be replaced with a few lines of code. No, it can't. > If total ETH sent to contract address by date X > Amount Y then send the ETH to the fundraiser, else return the ETH. Somehow missing the tracking of backers and rewards, the mutual identification of the parties, and the enforceable obligations with regard to rewards. Kinda key features of Kickstarter.
dkural 9y ago
Kickstarter outcompetes other competitors and individuals trying to raise their own money due to network effect and native distribution you get for your project.

foota 9y ago

It's true that the underlying payment systems could (should?) be built this way, but imo that's a very small portion of what most websites do.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

InclinedPlane 9y ago

Sure. Sure. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224

tribby 9y ago

without the 5%, kickstarter would not be a successful marketing platform. financial transactions are just part of what they do.

stingrae 9y ago
I think the 5% doesn't even include the financial transaction which is another 3% that goes to stripe. People give Kickstarter the 5% for the marketing and trust the platform tries to build.
- spookthesunset 9y ago
  I doubt kickstarter pays 3% in fees...
  - stingrae 9y ago
    They don't. That was the point. It is really 5% + 3%.

jerguismi 9y ago

Was tested with bitcoin: https://github.com/vinumeris/lighthouse https://github.com/vinumeris/lighthouse I'm sceptical about the use-case. Collecting money for the projects is so much about other things as well, not just the money collection phase - you need a services around it, it is not just the payment collection. That said, I think it would be quite useful for kickstarter to accept btc/eth.

chatmasta 9y ago
Exactly. The problem is that even if the core service can be replicated in a decentralized manner on the blockchain, any periphery services (discussion boards, dispute resolution) need to exist in some centralized place, developed and maintained by some centralized entity. Hell, even the crypto code itself needs to be developed/maintained by someone. It's hard to avoid centralization when somebody has to do the work of maintaining the platform, because maintenance costs money, which requires stakeholders, who will not pass up an opportunity to "collect rent" if the platform has any sort of network lock-in.

mrep 9y ago

Then why has nobody done that then? It blows my mind how so many people proliferate how useful blockchain companies can be yet despite all of the different blockchains, ICO's..., practically none [1] have taken off because they are technologically and economically worse than current market products and services. [1]: Illegal markets are the only market I have seen that do like it because companies/governments have specifically made it harder for illegal transactions to take place over traditional currencies.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
darawk 9y ago
Nobody has done it because it's inefficient right now, and the ecosystem is still only trusted by a relatively small minority of nerds like myself and others here. This proposal is a solution to one of those problems.
- weego 9y ago
  Why will the future change the level of inefficiency?
  - bhouston 9y ago
    Proof of stake should increase efficiency a lot.
  - darawk 9y ago
    That's what the link in the OP is all about. Plasma + Proof of Stake should mean an efficient, scalable blockchain for smart contracts.
- mrep 9y ago
  When will it ever be efficient? All blockchains rely on re-computing the same transaction across many different entities due to mistrust. However, despite the common sentiment that computers are cheap; at scale, the are definitely not. Every additional computation to validate something increases the cost of business and 99% of businesses are cutthroat when it comes to cost. Add in the other downsides/costs of crypto.* (my insights on the downsides of blockchain specifically: hard to use, one way transactions, high transfer costs due to low block size, super easy to get hacked and lose all your money...) and it's no wonder they are all failing. 99.999% of the time, the costs outway the benefits.

will_brown 9y ago

You do know people can launch a crowdfunding project that is decentralized, They don't need an ICO or blockchain, just a website. But there is a reason people don't do that, something to do with the value centralized platforms provide. Plus I'm not entirely sure anyone should trust smart contracts to actually perform such a function, next thing you know someone other than the project created takes all the funds pursuant to the smart contract, but hey that's the beauty of a smart contract it's infallible, so what ever it does it was intended to do, be damned with what people thought and understood it would do.

ge96 9y ago
The concept of decentralized apps, where does the initial copy come from that is then installed/copied onto other devices? (time to go read)
- will_brown 9y ago
  Maybe I'm wrong about my understanding....but maybe you are confusing decentralized with distributed.
  - ge96 9y ago
    I'm pretty sure that I am unsure of what I'm talking about. Time to go read.

phlo 9y ago

The part of Kickstarter you're describing isn't worth any significant fraction of these $500m. If it were, Indiegogo, Gofundme and all others in the space would need to be well on the unicorn track. A saying goes "Ideas are cheap, execution is everything". That's where this value of $500m comes in. It's in the brand reputation the company has built. In the traffic they generate by people browsing their site and discovering projects they might back. In the UI they've set up, and most of all, it's in the trust that they actually do some amount of quality checking. In the thought that projects on Kickstarter stand a better chance of executing than projects on competitor's sites. You can get someone to write the necessary code for "if funded send to x, else return funds" on any freelance site for a four-digit amount, whether you want it in Solidity or PHP. That's the easy part. The hard part then is building a better platform, policing the projects on there, ensuring quality and attracting backers.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
IanCal 9y ago
> You can get someone to write the necessary code for "if funded send to x, else return funds" on any freelance site for a four-digit amount Can you do so in a way that I as a funder don't need to trust you the intermediary?
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Can you do so in a way that I as a funder don't need to trust you the intermediary? No, and you can't with smart contracts either (the intermediary being the creator of the contract), unless funders are restricted to people with the skill to analyze the contract code. As proven by the DAO. And even if you could, you've replaced only a small-and-useless-in-isolation piece of Kickstarter by doing so.
  - IanCal 9y ago
    It moves the trust to the code rather than the entity. Code analysis does not need to be done by all, either. I'm not saying it's the entirety of kickstarter but I think you're being overly dismissive of the concept. It could work well for things like bug or feature bounties, or other similar situations where having a company to sit in the middle and hold cash requires building up too much reputation than it is worth. Running costs become just the transaction & code running costs on whatever network you're using too.

shp0ngle 9y ago

There was a platform called Lighthouse, made by Mike Hearn (developer of Bitcoinj and Bitcoin XT). It wasn't very popular or very user friendly, I think the development stopped one year ago

nemild 9y ago

This thinking is a common mistake I see from teams that think only about tech. User acquisition is critical in the success of marketplaces. Usability is often ignored too. Even today, if you create an eBay (granted, a much stickier marketplace than Kickstarter) with no fees, it's not as simple as throwing the doors open and expecting everyone to switch. You can read more here, in a different example I dig into (Slack vs IRC): https://www.nemil.com/musings/oss-and-slack.html https://www.nemil.com/musings/oss-and-slack.html If you ever want, I'm happy to have the debate with you (email in profile). If you really want to compete, you're going to need to be aware of what it'll really take to win, not just decentralized/blockchain and no fees. (And as a nit, I can also build a website in a week that takes 2% credit card vig without blockchain - sure I know you'll argue that I can raise the price later, but I'm still not going to win against Kickstarter without something more than just a cheaper price)

justicezyx 9y ago

In my imagination, I can replace anything with some equivalent and cost much less. But how? How can you replace kickstarter with a few lines of code? Through your wonderful imagination that can bend reality? Or through your convincing argument that kickerstarter volunteered to turn itself into a few lines of code. Or what?

dragonwriter 9y ago

> What about Kickstarter? A $500 million+ company that takes a 5% vig on all transacted funds can effectively be replaced with a few lines of code. No, it can't. > If total ETH sent to contract address by date X > Amount Y then send the ETH to the fundraiser, else return the ETH. Somehow missing the tracking of backers and rewards, the mutual identification of the parties, and the enforceable obligations with regard to rewards. Kinda key features of Kickstarter.

dkural 9y ago

Kickstarter outcompetes other competitors and individuals trying to raise their own money due to network effect and native distribution you get for your project.