I do remember Kickstarter having a problem with 'creators' taking people's money and then not producing anything? (Kind of inevitable with this kind of platform of course.) So maybe having a record of everything would be a way to deal with that?
Aha! Maybe they're building a version of their platform just for criminals, "Crookstarter".Plus, the current iconic use of blockchain is anonymous - so you have a record that a transaction took place, but you don't have a record of who was involved in the transaction.
Mom: "You don't need that! We have Crookstarter at home!"Aha! Maybe they're building a version of their platform just for criminals, "Crookstarter".
Mom: "You don't need that! We have Crookstarter at home!"
Crookstarter at Home: ...
I realize, I've got just over 200 projects backed, so I may be a massive enabler. But, other than projects done by a certain creator who ruined the live action video versions of two of my beloved game franchises, I'm doing okay.
Other than dodgy cryptocurrencies, every application I've seen for blockchain is mostly theoretical. Kickstarter is one of the more prominent platforms that has announced moving to blockchain. The problem I have is, many of the applications people have been talking about ("secure data access tracking" or "payments tracking") have an inherent problem with anonymous blockchain. And if you de-anonymize a blockchain, well, the whole point of a public ledger is that all transactions are being broadcast to all users. Do you really want me checking up on your transactions? And if you keep it anonymized, how are you going to use it to create accountability?I don't know, lots of geek stuff seems tied up with blockchain now.
Because I'm one tiny guy in a society in the midst of capitalistic corporate collapse, and the only way I can make my voice heard is apparently with my wallet -- no other form of voting seems to be heard. So, I will use my one relevant metric to vote things to go the way I want them to. I've stopped visiting various convenient outlets because of things they did I disagree with, there are other fish in the sea, I'll manage with Kickstarter, too.If they're still supporting good projects, why not continue, unless you think they're ripping off either the supporters or the creators?
If you go the venture capital route, you have to start showing immediate profitability. VC types aren't generally long term thinkers. They want ROI yesterday. The easiest way to satisfy them would be to increase fees. In fact it's the only way that I can see for a quick return, in a business that is all about facilitating interaction between third parties.Well, they only announced this recently, right? So you can't be blamed for anything before that.
If this in fact does mean they're going to start doing stupid things to raise the stock price and chase VC money and going to start wasting yours, that might be a reason to ditch them. But, I don't know, lots of geek stuff seems tied up with blockchain now. If they're still supporting good projects, why not continue, unless you think they're ripping off either the supporters or the creators?
That does sound pretty dodgy.
Who are they requiring to become validators? the backers?The Kickstarter FAQ says they will use "proof of stake" and when you click on the link it goes to a non-kickstarter website that says the following:
"All participating validators receive a reward in the native cryptocurrency, which is generally distributed by the network in proportion to each validator’s stake.
Becoming a validator is a major responsibility and requires a fairly high level of technical knowledge. The minimum amount of crypto that validators are required to stake is often relatively high (for ETH2, for example, it’s 32 ETH) and validators can lose some of their stake via a process called slashing if their node goes offline or if they validate a “bad” block of transactions."