3 ms·

Flooz failed because it was centralized. But Bitcoin is, as you know, decentralized.

by mrb 13y ago

patio11 13y ago
Flooz failed for a number of reasons: 1) Flooz was billed as magic Internet money, but provided no benefits for effecting transactions in Flooz versus transacting them with credit cards, which Internet merchants had begun to accept. Flooz' primary customer acquisition strategy was giving people free money. That was pretty popular, but also costly, and -- unlike Paypal -- Flooz never successfully convinced meaningful numbers of customers to transition from "spending free money" to "spending their own money." 2) Flooz had far insufficient transaction volume to justify the ongoing engineering and operation costs of keeping it around. At the peak, it was generating "thousands" of dollars of transactions a day. You can do the math on that: $200k volume per month times the pick-your-teeth-with-them margins in payment processing means you can't pay even a single engineer to keep the lights on. 3) Flooz, like most early payment processors, got their pockets picked by fraud to the tune of millions of dollars. Their merchant processor responded by requiring a $1 million rolling reserve. This caused a cash-flow crunch which was the proximate cause of their bankruptcy. 4) Flooz could have postponed death if they had access to the capital markets but the dot-com crash happened and, as a consequence, nobody wanted to throw more money at an e-commerce company whose core line of business was selling fake money for real money. But bitcoin is, as you say, decentralized. [Edit to add: I'm being a bit unfair there. Bitcoin has several advantages over Flooz. One is that Bitcoin, considered as an entity, awarded free money via seigniorage to early adopters and never had to back that free money with actual cash. Another is that Bitcoin structurally encouraged the creation of a widely distributed self-coordinating Internet boiler room to act as Bitcoin spokesmen and salescritters, via the aforementioned seigniorage and tapping into pre-existing networks among people with complementary political opinions regarding e.g. banking, self-government, privacy, etc. A third is that Bitcoin was, happily for Bitcoin advocates if not expressly hoped for, actually an improvement in the state of the art for small-scale drug smuggling, a business which turns out to be quite lucrative and underserved by other payment processors. This lead to people who had acquired essentially free bitcoins getting paid actual money by folks who wanted to buy very-much-not-free contraband, which helped provide a bit of kindling for the speculative bonfire.]
- dennisgorelik 13y ago
  So drug smuggling demand for financial services is fueling Bitcoin's growth? That's an interesting observation.

Flooz failed because it was centralized. But Bitcoin is, as you know, decentralized.

by mrb 13y ago

Flooz failed because it was centralized. But Bitcoin is, as you know, decentralized.

Flooz failed for a number of reasons: 1) Flooz was billed as magic Internet money, but provided no benefits for effecting transactions in Flooz versus transacting them with credit cards, which Internet merchants had begun to accept. Flooz' primary customer acquisition strategy was giving people free money. That was pretty popular, but also costly, and -- unlike Paypal -- Flooz never successfully convinced meaningful numbers of customers to transition from "spending free money" to "spending their own money." 2) Flooz had far insufficient transaction volume to justify the ongoing engineering and operation costs of keeping it around. At the peak, it was generating "thousands" of dollars of transactions a day. You can do the math on that: $200k volume per month times the pick-your-teeth-with-them margins in payment processing means you can't pay even a single engineer to keep the lights on. 3) Flooz, like most early payment processors, got their pockets picked by fraud to the tune of millions of dollars. Their merchant processor responded by requiring a $1 million rolling reserve. This caused a cash-flow crunch which was the proximate cause of their bankruptcy. 4) Flooz could have postponed death if they had access to the capital markets but the dot-com crash happened and, as a consequence, nobody wanted to throw more money at an e-commerce company whose core line of business was selling fake money for real money. But bitcoin is, as you say, decentralized. [Edit to add: I'm being a bit unfair there. Bitcoin has several advantages over Flooz. One is that Bitcoin, considered as an entity, awarded free money via seigniorage to early adopters and never had to back that free money with actual cash. Another is that Bitcoin structurally encouraged the creation of a widely distributed self-coordinating Internet boiler room to act as Bitcoin spokesmen and salescritters, via the aforementioned seigniorage and tapping into pre-existing networks among people with complementary political opinions regarding e.g. banking, self-government, privacy, etc. A third is that Bitcoin was, happily for Bitcoin advocates if not expressly hoped for, actually an improvement in the state of the art for small-scale drug smuggling, a business which turns out to be quite lucrative and underserved by other payment processors. This lead to people who had acquired essentially free bitcoins getting paid actual money by folks who wanted to buy very-much-not-free contraband, which helped provide a bit of kindling for the speculative bonfire.]

dennisgorelik 13y ago
So drug smuggling demand for financial services is fueling Bitcoin's growth? That's an interesting observation.