5 ms·
"The story (at least from what I can tell) is just that crowdfunding has developed a terrible reputation due to all the scams and failed promises from big name
by gafferongames 3y ago
"The story (at least from what I can tell) is just that crowdfunding has developed a terrible reputation due to all the scams and failed promises from big name projects there, so people don't really take it seriously anymore."
Sounds like a great fit for crypto!
- lostmsu 3y ago[flagged]
- the__alchemist 3y agoThere are historically many scams associated with both, so it's a fair analogy. My recollection was that Kickstarter was a mix, and Indiegogo was 90%+ scams.
- lostmsu 3y agoThere's a different level of association though. It is nearly impossible to see if Kickstarter project will flop or not and if you will see your money back ever. In crypto you can at least make reasonable judgement based on technology merits. All good projects are 100% transparent and developed in the open.
- the__alchemist 3y agoYour currency could evaporate because the price of the asset was fine, but your broker ran away with the money. Or, the hardware wallets etc are the best/safest alternative, assuming, of course, you never make a mistake when doing X, Y, Z...
- antifa 3y agoKickstarter had a reputation for fun creative projects that people wanted to exist. And many failed due to poor management, planning, etc.. "Crypto" has a reputation for recreating things nobody wanted but "on the blockchain", projects that costs hundreds or thousands of dollars for almost no value proposition beyond "it's a great investment! Trust me!" The few that weren't rugpulls were still asset flips or ponzi schemes or otherwise still negative-value-added over their non-blochain competitors.
- mritchie712 3y agosome blockchains (e.g. bitcoin) have been reliable, but you'd have to be joking to say "crypto" (as an industry) has been reliable.
- k33n 3y agoAs a generator of wealth, it has been very reliable.
- ceejayoz 3y agoSure, just like cocaine.
- digging 3y agoNot at all, it's largely grift-based wealth which by definition means there are more losers than winners
- allannienhuis 3y agoI think it's worse than that - as far as I can see it's only moves wealth from one pocket to another. Usually many pockets to few pockets. I've not heard of how it's increasing labor efficiency or enabling completely new capabilities for anyone, with maybe a few minor exceptions. So its really a pretty successful parasite.
- k33n 3y agoBitcoin has produced nothing but returns for long-term holders.
- allannienhuis 3y agoyes, that's exactly my point. it's moving money from newer gamblers to previous gamblers. it's not actually enabling much new economic value.
- throw4847285 3y agoGenerator of wealth for whom?
- malfist 3y agoRug pulls and ponzi schemes not withstanding.
- the_sleaze9 3y agoI agree with this interpretation - after all ponzis, scams, vapor ware, and rug pulls existed long before trust-less distributed ledger software.
- CPLX 3y agoPoe's Law strikes again.