6 ms·

The thing is, they are actually identifying a lot of real world problems and there is absolutely a market for what they are doing, both in terms of Johns lookin

The thing is, they are actually identifying a lot of real world problems and there is absolutely a market for what they are doing, both in terms of Johns looking for a sex worker, as well as sex workers looking for marketing, security, and insurance. If sex work was legal in more places, this would be a very viable business, assuming they manage to avoid the pitfalls Uber fell into: sexism and harassment, ignoring labor laws, getting involved in corporate espionage. But in the current legal system, yeah good luck. And good luck raising money.

JWLong 9y ago
Yes, they're identifying real world problems, but they're not solving it. You can't simultaneously have anonymity, while providing security for sex workers. These are both stated goals, across their various outlets.
- the_stc 9y ago
  The anonymity is for our core team, so we can stay operational[1]. But that is very few people. Other contractors are trustless. On-ground people will be rotated often enough (and well paid to compensate for that). Obviously actual workers can't remain anonymous when they meet users :]. But we can screen everyone involved to reduce the risk of LE infiltration. For providers, we will actually take their pictures, check ID, and make sure they actually provide service (just a 2 minute "test"): something an undercover cop will not do. Or maybe I am misunderstanding, how do you feel we are not solving things? 1: https://medium.com/@PinkApp/pink-app-trading-latency-for-anonymity-and-other-techniques-815ee21c6da4 https://medium.com/@PinkApp/pink-app-trading-latency-for-ano...
  - JWLong 9y ago
    1) You seem to have gotten your legal advice from Badger, and not Saul. https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/crime-courts/2017/05/07/bills-to-ban-police-sexual-contact-with-prostitutes-they-investigate-met-with-opposition/ https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/crime-courts/2017/05/07/bill... Forcing the narc to snort coke is not a viable means of weeding them out. 2) In places where it is illegal to buy, you have to provide anonymity for the buyers. Looks like you're already making plans to do just that. Good for you. You're now no longer capable of keeping your contractors safe. --- My advice to you: Commit one crime at a time. Even Uber managed to do that. :P
    - the_stc 9y ago
      1: I suppose it's possible that enough undercover cops are going to have sex with strangers to make a bust. I agree this does not work for clients (often male) - a cop won't mind having to touch someone for a bit. But a provider (often female), having sex with someone for a sting? I'm not sure that'll be common. On top of that, for them to collect more evidence, they'd have to continuously engage in having sex with strangers. If they stop, they'll get us to investigate as they'd be red-flagged right away (just like in Uber, if the driver drops you off in the middle of nowhere, you're going to open a support ticket right away). All this to get a few buying prostitution charges? 2: We provide privacy, not anonymity for both parties. We will verify identities to each provider's desired level. The verification stays within Pink's platform and isn't exposed to the provider. So the client can know we're not sharing this info, and the provider knows we have checked out the client. We show a picture of the other person when they meet. If it's not the same as who we verified, they can cancel the date or request security. (We have an article that will go out today explaining our secure in-person date protocol).
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        You seem to have not considered rewards and informants. Law enforcement doesn't need to personally be party to a transaction to gather evidence of it.
  - semi-extrinsic 9y ago
    Re anonymity, comparison to Silk Road etc.: do you have a dual BA in math and CS from Rice?
  - djur 9y ago
    > make sure they actually provide service (just a 2 minute "test") If that's implying what I think it is, that's an extraordinarily chilling thing to mention as a parenthetical.
    - the_stc 9y ago
      It's not chilling, why do you say that? As part of the onboarding process, the worker will perform sample services. We will pay them for this (along with referral fees if they were referred). Having sex with people is what a sex worker's job is. It's just that the client in this case will report to us and verify their ID. Seems like a good way to filter out people that are not serious or have ulterior motives (such as law enforcement).
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        No, it doesn't, though it seems to be the standard method that people ignorant of law enforcement come up with and think they have solved the problem of keeping LE out. For a start, if soliciting prostitution is illegal, the LE agent doesn't have to perform service, they just have to bust the “client/screener”, and turn them so that they report back properly.
        the_stc 9y ago
        You're correct, this can be subverted. Though it would not last very long. The thing many people seem to forget when talking to us is that this business is already happening. People are working off classified ad sites, like eros.com. The verification procedures are being used by workers charging from $$$ to $$$$. So while this isn't perfect, it's far better than anything existing. And in the end, what does LE end up with by doing all this? A few individual prostitution "busts", with no real change.
        icebraining 9y ago
        turn them so that they report back properly. But that only works if the client/screener can actually lead you anywhere.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > But we can screen everyone involved to reduce the risk of LE infiltration. Criminal conspiracies always seem to think this, and its a belief that quite often leads to their downfall. Because (1) law enforcement can pass screenings designed to weed them out, (2) law enforcement informants can pass screenings that law enforcement might not, and (3) law enforcement can turn people after they are screened.
the_stc 9y ago
We're probably going to mostly fill our Series A within a week (turning on the site in an hour or two). We have lots of expressed interest already. It's not hard for investors. Use Tor when trading our ERC20 token-shares, or pay with Monero - very hard to trace. We're working on the dividend-payment system, but it's safe to say we will offer high anonymity there, too. The demand for our solution is HUGE, and it is a lucrative business. Our starting cities (Dublin or Toronto) have legal sex work, but everything around it is illegal (including buying!). That removes the main risk for our workers, to the point we are offering $25,000 legal coverage for all users. Our core team is small, everyone else are trustless contractors. We are operating as an extrajurisdictional, anonymous, company. De-anonimization is a risk, but we're familiar with operating this way and are OK with the risk. We're also offering up to $100,000 bug bounty, including for de-anon attacks.
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  The odds are not in your favor when you're up against a nation state with unlimited resources. I hope your investors have good lawyers. Prison is no fun and proper opsec forever is not practical.
  - landryraccoon 9y ago
    That isn't the problem. It's more likely that if they are anonymous that they simply take the money from investors and run. Any measure they take to protect themselves from the law also protects them from their investors, since a lawsuit necessarily relies on the law to enforce an agreement.
    - the_stc 9y ago
      We're only raising a Series A right now. To globally expand, we're going to need to blockchain IPO, aimed at January when the first city is running. We are holding back a chunk of stock for secondary offerings because we may need a future raise. We want to grow fast and big, and that's not cheap. It's a highly profitable business so we won't need billions but still. We're investigating how we can enforce some of the rules via smart contracts, but there's still likely to be loopholes.

JWLong 9y ago

Yes, they're identifying real world problems, but they're not solving it. You can't simultaneously have anonymity, while providing security for sex workers. These are both stated goals, across their various outlets.

the_stc 9y ago
The anonymity is for our core team, so we can stay operational[1]. But that is very few people. Other contractors are trustless. On-ground people will be rotated often enough (and well paid to compensate for that). Obviously actual workers can't remain anonymous when they meet users :]. But we can screen everyone involved to reduce the risk of LE infiltration. For providers, we will actually take their pictures, check ID, and make sure they actually provide service (just a 2 minute "test"): something an undercover cop will not do. Or maybe I am misunderstanding, how do you feel we are not solving things? 1: https://medium.com/@PinkApp/pink-app-trading-latency-for-anonymity-and-other-techniques-815ee21c6da4 https://medium.com/@PinkApp/pink-app-trading-latency-for-ano...
- JWLong 9y ago
  1) You seem to have gotten your legal advice from Badger, and not Saul. https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/crime-courts/2017/05/07/bills-to-ban-police-sexual-contact-with-prostitutes-they-investigate-met-with-opposition/ https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/crime-courts/2017/05/07/bill... Forcing the narc to snort coke is not a viable means of weeding them out. 2) In places where it is illegal to buy, you have to provide anonymity for the buyers. Looks like you're already making plans to do just that. Good for you. You're now no longer capable of keeping your contractors safe. --- My advice to you: Commit one crime at a time. Even Uber managed to do that. :P
  - the_stc 9y ago
    1: I suppose it's possible that enough undercover cops are going to have sex with strangers to make a bust. I agree this does not work for clients (often male) - a cop won't mind having to touch someone for a bit. But a provider (often female), having sex with someone for a sting? I'm not sure that'll be common. On top of that, for them to collect more evidence, they'd have to continuously engage in having sex with strangers. If they stop, they'll get us to investigate as they'd be red-flagged right away (just like in Uber, if the driver drops you off in the middle of nowhere, you're going to open a support ticket right away). All this to get a few buying prostitution charges? 2: We provide privacy, not anonymity for both parties. We will verify identities to each provider's desired level. The verification stays within Pink's platform and isn't exposed to the provider. So the client can know we're not sharing this info, and the provider knows we have checked out the client. We show a picture of the other person when they meet. If it's not the same as who we verified, they can cancel the date or request security. (We have an article that will go out today explaining our secure in-person date protocol).
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      You seem to have not considered rewards and informants. Law enforcement doesn't need to personally be party to a transaction to gather evidence of it.
- semi-extrinsic 9y ago
  Re anonymity, comparison to Silk Road etc.: do you have a dual BA in math and CS from Rice?
- djur 9y ago
  > make sure they actually provide service (just a 2 minute "test") If that's implying what I think it is, that's an extraordinarily chilling thing to mention as a parenthetical.
  - the_stc 9y ago
    It's not chilling, why do you say that? As part of the onboarding process, the worker will perform sample services. We will pay them for this (along with referral fees if they were referred). Having sex with people is what a sex worker's job is. It's just that the client in this case will report to us and verify their ID. Seems like a good way to filter out people that are not serious or have ulterior motives (such as law enforcement).
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      No, it doesn't, though it seems to be the standard method that people ignorant of law enforcement come up with and think they have solved the problem of keeping LE out. For a start, if soliciting prostitution is illegal, the LE agent doesn't have to perform service, they just have to bust the “client/screener”, and turn them so that they report back properly.
      - the_stc 9y ago
        You're correct, this can be subverted. Though it would not last very long. The thing many people seem to forget when talking to us is that this business is already happening. People are working off classified ad sites, like eros.com. The verification procedures are being used by workers charging from $$$ to $$$$. So while this isn't perfect, it's far better than anything existing. And in the end, what does LE end up with by doing all this? A few individual prostitution "busts", with no real change.
      - icebraining 9y ago
        turn them so that they report back properly. But that only works if the client/screener can actually lead you anywhere.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > But we can screen everyone involved to reduce the risk of LE infiltration. Criminal conspiracies always seem to think this, and its a belief that quite often leads to their downfall. Because (1) law enforcement can pass screenings designed to weed them out, (2) law enforcement informants can pass screenings that law enforcement might not, and (3) law enforcement can turn people after they are screened.

the_stc 9y ago

We're probably going to mostly fill our Series A within a week (turning on the site in an hour or two). We have lots of expressed interest already. It's not hard for investors. Use Tor when trading our ERC20 token-shares, or pay with Monero - very hard to trace. We're working on the dividend-payment system, but it's safe to say we will offer high anonymity there, too. The demand for our solution is HUGE, and it is a lucrative business. Our starting cities (Dublin or Toronto) have legal sex work, but everything around it is illegal (including buying!). That removes the main risk for our workers, to the point we are offering $25,000 legal coverage for all users. Our core team is small, everyone else are trustless contractors. We are operating as an extrajurisdictional, anonymous, company. De-anonimization is a risk, but we're familiar with operating this way and are OK with the risk. We're also offering up to $100,000 bug bounty, including for de-anon attacks.

toomuchtodo 9y ago
The odds are not in your favor when you're up against a nation state with unlimited resources. I hope your investors have good lawyers. Prison is no fun and proper opsec forever is not practical.
- landryraccoon 9y ago
  That isn't the problem. It's more likely that if they are anonymous that they simply take the money from investors and run. Any measure they take to protect themselves from the law also protects them from their investors, since a lawsuit necessarily relies on the law to enforce an agreement.
  - the_stc 9y ago
    We're only raising a Series A right now. To globally expand, we're going to need to blockchain IPO, aimed at January when the first city is running. We are holding back a chunk of stock for secondary offerings because we may need a future raise. We want to grow fast and big, and that's not cheap. It's a highly profitable business so we won't need billions but still. We're investigating how we can enforce some of the rules via smart contracts, but there's still likely to be loopholes.