So I think that the equity stake in the network model is closest to reality.
I have also looked at this investing in the protocol concept a little sideways, it's not really a thing that can be owned, although I'm very certain that people will try to own these protocols and that frankly the process of working that out will in fact be interesting and we will learn stuff.
At least for things that I am developing personally, which usually looks like me putting together a concept or framework and team around it, one of my litmus tests is actually:
Would launching this require raising capital?
If yes, it's not for me.
My reasoning is that there is simply too much damn ambiguity. Time that otherwise could be spent thinking about the work, doing the work, making it happen, ends up doing legal guesswork.
If the law were not so very ambiguous, I think that my position would be quite different. For example, would I sell equity in a corporation to raise capital to capitalize a corporation that is selling an open hardware blockchain oriented product that is going to bring in revenue as both fiat and crypto?
Absolutely, yes.
There is no legal ambiguity and the process could be smooth and mainly guesswork free.
There is great clarity surrounding venture capital practices for startups.
That is not the situation for decentralized applications that secure their infrastructure with a staking token or really any of the other things that I am currently interested in building with respect to cryptocurrency.
Legal ambiguity Burns a project's time energy and enthusiasm and should be avoided like the plague.
I figure that by this point the solutions are fairly obvious so I won't even get into what needs to be done re: adjustments to archaic securities laws, instead I was interested in sharing how I am approaching the situation and also maybe hearing how others are dealing with it or getting people's opinions on my technique
So I think that the equity stake in the network model is closest to reality.
I have also looked at this investing in the protocol concept a little sideways, it's not really a thing that can be owned, although I'm very certain that people will try to own these protocols and that frankly the process of working that out will in fact be interesting and we will learn stuff.
At least for things that I am developing personally, which usually looks like me putting together a concept or framework and team around it, one of my litmus tests is actually:
Would launching this require raising capital?
If yes, it's not for me.
My reasoning is that there is simply too much damn ambiguity. Time that otherwise could be spent thinking about the work, doing the work, making it happen, ends up doing legal guesswork.
If the law were not so very ambiguous, I think that my position would be quite different. For example, would I sell equity in a corporation to raise capital to capitalize a corporation that is selling an open hardware blockchain oriented product that is going to bring in revenue as both fiat and crypto?
Absolutely, yes.
There is no legal ambiguity and the process could be smooth and mainly guesswork free.
There is great clarity surrounding venture capital practices for startups.
That is not the situation for decentralized applications that secure their infrastructure with a staking token or really any of the other things that I am currently interested in building with respect to cryptocurrency.
Legal ambiguity Burns a project's time energy and enthusiasm and should be avoided like the plague.
I figure that by this point the solutions are fairly obvious so I won't even get into what needs to be done re: adjustments to archaic securities laws, instead I was interested in sharing how I am approaching the situation and also maybe hearing how others are dealing with it or getting people's opinions on my technique