5 ms·

I think what's most terrifying is they raised roughly $100,000,000 USD in funding, from folks like Larry Ellison at that. It was a glorified loyalty reward pro

by MrFoof 17y ago

I think what's most terrifying is they raised roughly $100,000,000 USD in funding, from folks like Larry Ellison at that. It was a glorified loyalty reward program. They did however manage a partnership with MasterCard that allowed members to credit beenz to their account, and they allowed some other online reward point sites to convert their currency to beenz as well. If I remember right, they dealt with a lot of scrutiny from governments since their end-game plan was to have beenz be a commonly accepted currency, and for members to convert real money to beenz. They even employed a few economists to orchestrate the buying/selling of beenz from/to partnering merchants, making their margin on the spread.

teilo 17y ago
Why not? Aside from violating (unconstitutional) legal tender laws, Beenz would have had no less intrinsic value than the fiat currency used to buy them. They were never a real threat to the Fed. Now, someone comes up with a gold backed electronic currency, THAT is a real threat to the Fed, and they are shut down rather quickly. Why? Because, unlike Fed notes, a gold backed electronic currency would have real intrinsic value.
- jwb119 17y ago
  this guy has apparently been doing just that since 1996: http://www.e-gold.com/ http://www.e-gold.com/
  - jfarmer 17y ago
    And it's a haven for money-laundering and other very illegal activities.
    - gojomo 17y ago
      Perhaps, was. E-Gold has now bent to US financial regulation (which I believe ggp post may have been alluding to): http://stakeventures.com/articles/2008/07/22/the-man-finally-brought-e-gold-down http://stakeventures.com/articles/2008/07/22/the-man-finally...
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- philwelch 17y ago
  There's nothing unconstitutional about legal tender laws, the Constitution explicitly gives Congress the authority to pass laws regulating the issue of legal US currency. There are gold backed electronic currencies, and a lot of people will tell you gold is more valuable than fiat money, so they will gladly take all of your fiat money and give you some gold electronic currency in exchange. Gold is a crap currency. It's just as "fiat" as dollar bills, except (a) commodity backed currencies are totally ruined by gold rushes, (b) using commodities as currency distorts the market value of that commodity, and (c) a gold standard would lead to deflation, which would be an economic disaster. All of which misses the main point, which is that you took a discussion of a failed startup from the dot-com era and used it as a springboard into a totally unrelated recitation of half-baked goldbug talking points that are off topic and for that matter rather crankish. Little different than if there was a failed dot-com that centered around teaching kids about biology, and someone commented on it just to push some creationist viewpoint. (Trying to make up a little for missing the down-arrow and accidentally modding you up.)
  - tybris 17y ago
    An oasis of reason, in a desert of insanity.
froo 17y ago
I think what's most terrifying is they raised roughly $100,000,000 USD in funding, from folks like Larry Ellison at that. From the article: Any interesting views from your office? "Well, the building opposite of us has two ladies of . . . 'professional status,' shall we say." ... at least we know where the money went. Again from the article. What was the most unusual bonus? "It's not one we can publish." Suspicions confirmed perhaps? Once again from the article Little perks: "We operate outside the law. . . . We go out for curry dinners and booze and a lot of other things I can't mention ... that's the 3rd allusion to possibly having spent the money on hookers in the same article... or I'm just suspicious. Perhaps Jason Calacanis can add that to his list of tips for startups - don't spend investment money on hookers :)

by MrFoof 17y ago

teilo 17y ago

Why not? Aside from violating (unconstitutional) legal tender laws, Beenz would have had no less intrinsic value than the fiat currency used to buy them. They were never a real threat to the Fed. Now, someone comes up with a gold backed electronic currency, THAT is a real threat to the Fed, and they are shut down rather quickly. Why? Because, unlike Fed notes, a gold backed electronic currency would have real intrinsic value.

jwb119 17y ago
this guy has apparently been doing just that since 1996: http://www.e-gold.com/ http://www.e-gold.com/
- jfarmer 17y ago
  And it's a haven for money-laundering and other very illegal activities.
  - gojomo 17y ago
    Perhaps, was. E-Gold has now bent to US financial regulation (which I believe ggp post may have been alluding to): http://stakeventures.com/articles/2008/07/22/the-man-finally-brought-e-gold-down http://stakeventures.com/articles/2008/07/22/the-man-finally...
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
philwelch 17y ago
There's nothing unconstitutional about legal tender laws, the Constitution explicitly gives Congress the authority to pass laws regulating the issue of legal US currency. There are gold backed electronic currencies, and a lot of people will tell you gold is more valuable than fiat money, so they will gladly take all of your fiat money and give you some gold electronic currency in exchange. Gold is a crap currency. It's just as "fiat" as dollar bills, except (a) commodity backed currencies are totally ruined by gold rushes, (b) using commodities as currency distorts the market value of that commodity, and (c) a gold standard would lead to deflation, which would be an economic disaster. All of which misses the main point, which is that you took a discussion of a failed startup from the dot-com era and used it as a springboard into a totally unrelated recitation of half-baked goldbug talking points that are off topic and for that matter rather crankish. Little different than if there was a failed dot-com that centered around teaching kids about biology, and someone commented on it just to push some creationist viewpoint. (Trying to make up a little for missing the down-arrow and accidentally modding you up.)
- tybris 17y ago
  An oasis of reason, in a desert of insanity.

froo 17y ago

I think what's most terrifying is they raised roughly $100,000,000 USD in funding, from folks like Larry Ellison at that. From the article: Any interesting views from your office? "Well, the building opposite of us has two ladies of . . . 'professional status,' shall we say." ... at least we know where the money went. Again from the article. What was the most unusual bonus? "It's not one we can publish." Suspicions confirmed perhaps? Once again from the article Little perks: "We operate outside the law. . . . We go out for curry dinners and booze and a lot of other things I can't mention ... that's the 3rd allusion to possibly having spent the money on hookers in the same article... or I'm just suspicious. Perhaps Jason Calacanis can add that to his list of tips for startups - don't spend investment money on hookers :)