3 ms·

And they are building signal for peddling their ecoin?

by djanogo 5y ago

meepmorp 5y ago
I believe they're making a point about privacy and ad targeting that's somehow orthogonal to their cryptocurrency.
- warkdarrior 5y ago
  It is not orthogonal, they are clearly positioning their own cryptocurrency-via-chat as preserving privacy and are signaling that they are better than Facebook in that respect.
shkkmo 5y ago
Signal is a non-profit that was primarily funded by a WhatsApp co-founder who left Facebook because they didn't like the plans to add Ads to WhatsApp.
- monocasa 5y ago
  From what I've heard, that was a zero interest loan that needs to be slowly paid back.
- skinnymuch 5y ago
  I don’t see how people believe the founders of Whatsapp didn’t know what was going to happen. They are getting a free pass and even more than that - praise. No one gives you $19 billion dollars for a product..only to barely monetize it and do it inconsistently with how the rest of the related company operates.
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    The amount of money that was left on the table in their early departure leads me to think there was at least some naivety on the way in to that deal.
    - skinnymuch 5y ago
      The far richer and more powerful of the founders didn’t leave a lot on the table. Few hundred million maybe? Initially it was thought Kuom left a lot. That was later clarified. Kuom didn’t have an early departure either. Another thing that got clarified. Action may have left much more and did actually leave early enough. Especially proportionally. However, the WhatsApp deal may have been possible without his saying yes being needed. Both have gotten good publicity for being “good” people and for the people with their anti FB rhetoric. Even though Kuom has not done much. Even being for Trump’s authoritarian tendencies into 2017, if I’m not mistaken. At best Acton had some naivety. I still find it hard to believe the biggest reason was naivety versus getting paid huge amounts of money then when that has settled, get back to caring about things like privacy. It’s pretty easy to care about privacy or this issue or that issue when you could lose 99% of your money and still never work a day in your life. It also does not in my opinion, deserve much praise, nor assumptions in their favor. The general status quo and all its issues were likely not a priority for either founder until they were filthy rich. Again just my opinion and assumptions.

And they are building signal for peddling their ecoin?

meepmorp 5y ago

I believe they're making a point about privacy and ad targeting that's somehow orthogonal to their cryptocurrency.

warkdarrior 5y ago
It is not orthogonal, they are clearly positioning their own cryptocurrency-via-chat as preserving privacy and are signaling that they are better than Facebook in that respect.

shkkmo 5y ago

Signal is a non-profit that was primarily funded by a WhatsApp co-founder who left Facebook because they didn't like the plans to add Ads to WhatsApp.

monocasa 5y ago
From what I've heard, that was a zero interest loan that needs to be slowly paid back.
skinnymuch 5y ago
I don’t see how people believe the founders of Whatsapp didn’t know what was going to happen. They are getting a free pass and even more than that - praise. No one gives you $19 billion dollars for a product..only to barely monetize it and do it inconsistently with how the rest of the related company operates.
- shkkmo 5y ago
  The amount of money that was left on the table in their early departure leads me to think there was at least some naivety on the way in to that deal.
  - skinnymuch 5y ago
    The far richer and more powerful of the founders didn’t leave a lot on the table. Few hundred million maybe? Initially it was thought Kuom left a lot. That was later clarified. Kuom didn’t have an early departure either. Another thing that got clarified. Action may have left much more and did actually leave early enough. Especially proportionally. However, the WhatsApp deal may have been possible without his saying yes being needed. Both have gotten good publicity for being “good” people and for the people with their anti FB rhetoric. Even though Kuom has not done much. Even being for Trump’s authoritarian tendencies into 2017, if I’m not mistaken. At best Acton had some naivety. I still find it hard to believe the biggest reason was naivety versus getting paid huge amounts of money then when that has settled, get back to caring about things like privacy. It’s pretty easy to care about privacy or this issue or that issue when you could lose 99% of your money and still never work a day in your life. It also does not in my opinion, deserve much praise, nor assumptions in their favor. The general status quo and all its issues were likely not a priority for either founder until they were filthy rich. Again just my opinion and assumptions.