...top notch software development requires funding. We all need money to live.
Top notch software development requires funding^^^
Did anyone actually answer this, or are you all just enjoying a one-sided circle-jerk?
How do great new projects get funded if the innovators are not allowed to be paid?
Hey
I apologize for not responding to this earlier. Skipped my mind (although I don't see where it is posted).
Yes, innovators need to be paid for the work they do and in that sense, ICO's are indeed a powerful medium of capital mobility.
However,
1. How do you validate these "innovators" ?
2. How do you ensure they continue working post fund-raising (multi-sigs are a possibility, but its rarely used)
3. On what pay-scale are they going to be rewarded ? (Real start-up CEO's avoid salaries to hold company share / liquidate shares for personal expenses )
4. How is their work going to be tracked ? (Yes, Github is one of the possibilities)
5. How are their quality standards tracked ?
Perhaps a better way to put this thread across would have been " ICO's need fixing"
In their current form, they have a lot of flaws and that is perfectly fine. We started at barter and now we are at decentralized global currency.
Systems and financial models evolve over time. However, it is important we detect their flaws, acknowledge them and work towards fixing it.
Thank you for your interest in the thread.
In a free market, investors in profitable companies get rewarded and "suckers" lose their money.
2 - 5) Are we talking about "real-world" companies, 'token-based' crypto 2.0-crap, or truly nasty copy/paste coins?
That is my only point, thanks.