3 ms·

U jelly? I imagine you walk up to Marc and say, "Hey, we are building PGP for the world." Some days later, $10,000,000 pops in to your bank account. Edit: Wo

U jelly? I imagine you walk up to Marc and say, "Hey, we are building PGP for the world." Some days later, $10,000,000 pops in to your bank account. Edit: Would be considerate if the down-modders would provide an alternate scenario.

rosser 11y ago
Edit: Would be considerate if the down-modders would provide an alternate scenario. I'd imagine you're being downvoted more for the "U jelly?" childishness than the (im)plausibility of your (completely out of touch with reality) notion of how Keybase got their funding. That's why I downvoted, anyway; I saw your opening line, clicked the down arrow, and moved on to the next comment without further thought or consideration. Whether you agree with the mod-supported position that downvotes can legitimately be used as a form of disagreement or not, they're explicitly also meant to be used to discourage the kind of discourse that brings down the tone of the site. "U jelly?" certainly qualifies as that.
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  Thanks for your opinion. >"U jelly?" certainly qualifies as that. I'd argue that maligning keybase as a hobby project qualifies as much as "U jelly?". At least it is discourse, rather than an anonymous downmod.
  - rosser 11y ago
    It's a matter of tone. Whether you disagree with the Ur-parent's position that Keybase is — or, more accurately, "feels like" — a "hobby" project, the position was presented first as an individual's perspective, and second, was asking for clarification. He (?) wasn't saying, "Keybase is just a hobby project," but rather, "Keybase feels to me like a hobby project. How does something that seems like a hobby project get $10MM in funding?" Your response was low-brow dismissal, and not of the poster's position (you didn't respond to what they said), but of the poster (again, you talked about the poster, not what they said). Do you see the difference?
    - jsprogrammer 11y ago
      Mine was more terse, surely. However, it accurately reflected my perspective, based on what I just read. I didn't present it as anything different. Further, I directly answered the question that was asked. Do you not think that is the general interaction structure of funding? Surely, it doesn't cover every case, but do you seriously think it did not happen in this case? No one has yet put forth any other scenario.
      - rosser 11y ago
        Again, the downvotes, and this entire sub-thread have nothing whatsoever to do with the structure of funding, and whether your scenario is more or less plausible than the money being left under their pillows overnight by an army of Oompa Loompas wearing magical flying tutus. It is (IMO) solely and utterly about "U jelly?". If you hadn't opened with that, you may or may not have been downvoted, but none of this discussion would have ensued, because then your post would have been a response to what its parent said, instead of a comment about its parent's author. I don't know how many more flashing neon arrows I can put around the distinction I'm trying to draw here. Either you get it, or you don't.
        jsprogrammer 11y ago
        >Either you get it, or you don't. Yes, I like binary logic. Comments about the parent's author vs. comments about the commitment level of the people behind the parent's content's focused project (which is therefore a comment about the author's of Keybase) I guess there is a distinction there (or at least I just named some distinction), but I'm not really sure why one was judged more acceptable than the other. Edit: Ok, I guess you (or some anonymous down-modder) want more. > and this entire sub-thread have nothing whatsoever to do with the structure of funding This is just plain false. You lampooned my scenario in your first sentence into this sub-thread.
        leshow 11y ago
        relax, you came across like a frat boy. you got downvoted. stop talking now.
  - hippich 11y ago
    what do you mean by "maligning"? Second paragraph of their blog post: "Keybase started as a PGP keyserver hobby project, aimed at making key lookups as easy as knowing someone's username."
    - jsprogrammer 11y ago
      That's fair. When did Keybase start? They seemed to be much further along than hobby, unless they just started working full-time (and with $10million!).
hippich 11y ago
No, I am not jealous or anything. I have bunch of side projects which I never considered "investable" since none of them has clear path to monetization and/or built openly. Therefore I wanted to know what it takes to grow a full scaled business out of currently non-monetizable hobby project.
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  Sorry, that's just the first impression I got when I read your comment. I wouldn't say a new company with (presumably) no revenue, but $10 million in funding is a full scale business. Certainly more of a business than a hobby project, but at some point a business needs revenue to qualify as a 'business'. To be invested in, you need to convince your investors to give you money to do something. You have to explain what you are doing in a way they can understand and once they understand what you are doing, they need to be excited and want to invest (because they are interested in what you are doing or because they think they can make a lot of money off your work). In this case, the investors are very interested in public key cryptography and Keybase was able to explain to them what they are doing and what they need going forward to build what they are trying to build.

rosser 11y ago

Edit: Would be considerate if the down-modders would provide an alternate scenario. I'd imagine you're being downvoted more for the "U jelly?" childishness than the (im)plausibility of your (completely out of touch with reality) notion of how Keybase got their funding. That's why I downvoted, anyway; I saw your opening line, clicked the down arrow, and moved on to the next comment without further thought or consideration. Whether you agree with the mod-supported position that downvotes can legitimately be used as a form of disagreement or not, they're explicitly also meant to be used to discourage the kind of discourse that brings down the tone of the site. "U jelly?" certainly qualifies as that.

jsprogrammer 11y ago
Thanks for your opinion. >"U jelly?" certainly qualifies as that. I'd argue that maligning keybase as a hobby project qualifies as much as "U jelly?". At least it is discourse, rather than an anonymous downmod.
- rosser 11y ago
  It's a matter of tone. Whether you disagree with the Ur-parent's position that Keybase is — or, more accurately, "feels like" — a "hobby" project, the position was presented first as an individual's perspective, and second, was asking for clarification. He (?) wasn't saying, "Keybase is just a hobby project," but rather, "Keybase feels to me like a hobby project. How does something that seems like a hobby project get $10MM in funding?" Your response was low-brow dismissal, and not of the poster's position (you didn't respond to what they said), but of the poster (again, you talked about the poster, not what they said). Do you see the difference?
  - jsprogrammer 11y ago
    Mine was more terse, surely. However, it accurately reflected my perspective, based on what I just read. I didn't present it as anything different. Further, I directly answered the question that was asked. Do you not think that is the general interaction structure of funding? Surely, it doesn't cover every case, but do you seriously think it did not happen in this case? No one has yet put forth any other scenario.
    - rosser 11y ago
      Again, the downvotes, and this entire sub-thread have nothing whatsoever to do with the structure of funding, and whether your scenario is more or less plausible than the money being left under their pillows overnight by an army of Oompa Loompas wearing magical flying tutus. It is (IMO) solely and utterly about "U jelly?". If you hadn't opened with that, you may or may not have been downvoted, but none of this discussion would have ensued, because then your post would have been a response to what its parent said, instead of a comment about its parent's author. I don't know how many more flashing neon arrows I can put around the distinction I'm trying to draw here. Either you get it, or you don't.
      - jsprogrammer 11y ago
        >Either you get it, or you don't. Yes, I like binary logic. Comments about the parent's author vs. comments about the commitment level of the people behind the parent's content's focused project (which is therefore a comment about the author's of Keybase) I guess there is a distinction there (or at least I just named some distinction), but I'm not really sure why one was judged more acceptable than the other. Edit: Ok, I guess you (or some anonymous down-modder) want more. > and this entire sub-thread have nothing whatsoever to do with the structure of funding This is just plain false. You lampooned my scenario in your first sentence into this sub-thread.
        leshow 11y ago
        relax, you came across like a frat boy. you got downvoted. stop talking now.
- hippich 11y ago
  what do you mean by "maligning"? Second paragraph of their blog post: "Keybase started as a PGP keyserver hobby project, aimed at making key lookups as easy as knowing someone's username."
  - jsprogrammer 11y ago
    That's fair. When did Keybase start? They seemed to be much further along than hobby, unless they just started working full-time (and with $10million!).

hippich 11y ago

No, I am not jealous or anything. I have bunch of side projects which I never considered "investable" since none of them has clear path to monetization and/or built openly. Therefore I wanted to know what it takes to grow a full scaled business out of currently non-monetizable hobby project.

jsprogrammer 11y ago
Sorry, that's just the first impression I got when I read your comment. I wouldn't say a new company with (presumably) no revenue, but $10 million in funding is a full scale business. Certainly more of a business than a hobby project, but at some point a business needs revenue to qualify as a 'business'. To be invested in, you need to convince your investors to give you money to do something. You have to explain what you are doing in a way they can understand and once they understand what you are doing, they need to be excited and want to invest (because they are interested in what you are doing or because they think they can make a lot of money off your work). In this case, the investors are very interested in public key cryptography and Keybase was able to explain to them what they are doing and what they need going forward to build what they are trying to build.