5 ms·

> Unfortunately, many contributors are leaving thousands of dollars unclaimed because they think they are being scammed. > Starkware airdrop I didn't want to

> Unfortunately, many contributors are leaving thousands of dollars unclaimed because they think they are being scammed. > Starkware airdrop I didn't want to name names, but if they wanted to give me money, their email shouldn't have set off Gmail's spam filter... they could have also converted their scamcoin themsevles and donated to my patreon. /shrug

Joker_vD 2y ago
But that'd require them to part with their money as opposed to making you to look for some another early adopter to sell those cryptocoins to.
- noch 2y ago
  > their money as opposed to making you to look for some another early adopter to sell those cryptocoins to. It is true that distributing one's own token is in the effort of bootstrapping their network. But people tend not to value what they receive for free and don't care about, which is why many in crypto are against airdrops as a form of token distribution. Nonetheless, the ambition is to distribute ownership of the network and thus incentivize users as well as decentralize ownership so that the token may become a commodity and the network more robust and valuable. Time will tell if such experiments will succeed. Certainly, the SEC is watching. As for "their money", if you look at the balance sheets of U.S. regulated exchanges and U.S. regulated crypto companies, you will note that these crypto tokens are listed and marked to a certain value and that this accounting is recognized legally in the U.S. These tokens are in fact valuable assets even if their moneyness is debatable.
  - mistrial9 2y ago
    two replies - legal regulated exchanges "define value" and/or markets that have demand and clear participation "define value" .. in fact it is both, and more than both.. good to discuss this generally in the USA at this time imho
  - jowea 2y ago
    Don't airdrops restrict US persons? I mean I don't know if it's as strict as the Binance or FTX restrictions but still, the SEC is going to get involved?
    - noch 2y ago
      > the SEC is going to get involved? The SEC exists to protect US citizens. They are only relevant as far as a company serving Americans wants to issue securities/tokens to US citizens. This is also why decentralization is desirable so that a credible argument can be made for a given token, that it should be viewed as a commodity, one day. And yes, some airdrops are not available to U.S. citizens.
noch 2y ago
> If they wanted to give me money, their email shouldn't have set off Gmail's spam filter... they could have also converted their scamcoin themsevles and donated to my patreon. False positives in spam filters notwithstanding, the gist of your view is reasonable and many have asked why "just contribute to my Patreon if I have one" isn't done. A brief consideration of the mechanism/logistics reveals that this approach wouldn't scale to hundreds of thousands of contributors in unknown jurisdictions. The point, after all, is long term sustainability in automating payments to opensource contributors into perpetuity. It can't and shouldn't be assumed that there will always be people on hand to do the paperwork as opposed to having systems interact with established APIs. That said, if Patreon/Github accept cryptocurrencies, you'll soon receive airdrops that way, as normal donations. Stripe Payment links will be used in a similar way in time. The other major problem is legal: distributing dollars globally is not a simple process and would expose many contributors to regulatory burdens that have been documented extensively elsewhere. (e.g. in the simplest case, requiring each recipient to file a W-8BEN or something similar.) Again: the point is to pay opensource contributors in an automatic, scalable, "uncensorable" way, for their entire lifetimes. The focus thus far has been on building "smart contracts" that do this. It's an experiment and only time will tell as we see who benefits, who doesn't, and who opts out altogether. > they could have also converted their scamcoin themsevles Perhaps. But the point is to pay you in the currency of their network, as distinct from US dollars, because the companies/DAOs believe in the value of their network and asset. Just as public companies often do with the shares they issue, these blockchains also provide reliable liquidity (in this case, in the form of permissionless liquidity pools) for their "scamcoin" that you can use to convert your holdings to USD or any other currency. Alternatively, you could use a U.S. regulated exchange like Coinbase. But don't feel that you're being forced to accept payment. There are many who have refused, on principal, to claim various airdrops over the past several years. They don't need or want the money and that's fine. But there are many others for whom payment for their free code is proving useful. All I'm pointing out is that this effort is underway in order to find out how to make opensource sustainable.

Joker_vD 2y ago

But that'd require them to part with their money as opposed to making you to look for some another early adopter to sell those cryptocoins to.

noch 2y ago
> their money as opposed to making you to look for some another early adopter to sell those cryptocoins to. It is true that distributing one's own token is in the effort of bootstrapping their network. But people tend not to value what they receive for free and don't care about, which is why many in crypto are against airdrops as a form of token distribution. Nonetheless, the ambition is to distribute ownership of the network and thus incentivize users as well as decentralize ownership so that the token may become a commodity and the network more robust and valuable. Time will tell if such experiments will succeed. Certainly, the SEC is watching. As for "their money", if you look at the balance sheets of U.S. regulated exchanges and U.S. regulated crypto companies, you will note that these crypto tokens are listed and marked to a certain value and that this accounting is recognized legally in the U.S. These tokens are in fact valuable assets even if their moneyness is debatable.
- mistrial9 2y ago
  two replies - legal regulated exchanges "define value" and/or markets that have demand and clear participation "define value" .. in fact it is both, and more than both.. good to discuss this generally in the USA at this time imho
- jowea 2y ago
  Don't airdrops restrict US persons? I mean I don't know if it's as strict as the Binance or FTX restrictions but still, the SEC is going to get involved?
  - noch 2y ago
    > the SEC is going to get involved? The SEC exists to protect US citizens. They are only relevant as far as a company serving Americans wants to issue securities/tokens to US citizens. This is also why decentralization is desirable so that a credible argument can be made for a given token, that it should be viewed as a commodity, one day. And yes, some airdrops are not available to U.S. citizens.

noch 2y ago

> If they wanted to give me money, their email shouldn't have set off Gmail's spam filter... they could have also converted their scamcoin themsevles and donated to my patreon. False positives in spam filters notwithstanding, the gist of your view is reasonable and many have asked why "just contribute to my Patreon if I have one" isn't done. A brief consideration of the mechanism/logistics reveals that this approach wouldn't scale to hundreds of thousands of contributors in unknown jurisdictions. The point, after all, is long term sustainability in automating payments to opensource contributors into perpetuity. It can't and shouldn't be assumed that there will always be people on hand to do the paperwork as opposed to having systems interact with established APIs. That said, if Patreon/Github accept cryptocurrencies, you'll soon receive airdrops that way, as normal donations. Stripe Payment links will be used in a similar way in time. The other major problem is legal: distributing dollars globally is not a simple process and would expose many contributors to regulatory burdens that have been documented extensively elsewhere. (e.g. in the simplest case, requiring each recipient to file a W-8BEN or something similar.) Again: the point is to pay opensource contributors in an automatic, scalable, "uncensorable" way, for their entire lifetimes. The focus thus far has been on building "smart contracts" that do this. It's an experiment and only time will tell as we see who benefits, who doesn't, and who opts out altogether. > they could have also converted their scamcoin themsevles Perhaps. But the point is to pay you in the currency of their network, as distinct from US dollars, because the companies/DAOs believe in the value of their network and asset. Just as public companies often do with the shares they issue, these blockchains also provide reliable liquidity (in this case, in the form of permissionless liquidity pools) for their "scamcoin" that you can use to convert your holdings to USD or any other currency. Alternatively, you could use a U.S. regulated exchange like Coinbase. But don't feel that you're being forced to accept payment. There are many who have refused, on principal, to claim various airdrops over the past several years. They don't need or want the money and that's fine. But there are many others for whom payment for their free code is proving useful. All I'm pointing out is that this effort is underway in order to find out how to make opensource sustainable.