Impact

Every year our economy is losing trillions in value bc an entire class of goods - public goods - cannot capture value.

We can now fix that with thanks to the blockchain. This is crypto's real PMF:

Every year our economy is losing trillions in value bc an entire class of goods - public goods - cannot capture value.

We can now fix that with thanks to the blockchain. This is crypto's real PMF:
https://paragraph.com/@abundance/coordination-structures

Working on /impact ||


Abundance Economy book: book.abundance.id

First of all - nice article on extremely sensitive and important topic🔥

And here's my question:
- with retroactive rewarding, there's no initial stage. Like if I want to create a public goods product, that eventually creates value and impact and can be rewarded based on that, I need to start somewhere. How do I get the team and resources needed to do that, when the rewarding is retroactive (sorry in advance if that was covered in the article somewhere and I didn't notice it).

probably needs some expounding but there are essentially two stages here:

In the first stage the network determines the (expected) value a public good

In the second stage - once the public good is created and already has impact on the network - the network reviews the impact and reward the good (retroactively). This review can be recurring - with funding distributed based on milestones/percent of overall impact realized.

Between stages 1 and 2 you can put a team together and get investors or loans for your project. Investors (or banks) take a risk on your execution, and can get a portion of the retro funding (based on what you agree to)

diagrammatically it looks something like this:

Co-founder at /nearchos 🧭 Dad of two amazing daughters 🧭 Web3 enthusiast 🧭 Jump rope & Calisthenics beginner 🧭 https://nearchos.xyz

I'd say the investment would be comparable to that of other businesses today. Not every business venture is successful, and that's part of the risk investors need to take into account.

The risk should match the expected return; low-risk projects will likely have lots of competitive bids, which means the return is likely to be lower. Risky projects will have fewer bids from investors, and the expected return will be higher.

With that said, I don't think the investment is all-or-nothing. There could be ways for an investor to recover part of the funds based on how the contract is written. You can also have a situation where a research project, for example, doesn't produce the desired results, but the data is later used by other successful public goods projects as a source, which lets the investor recover some funds (this is possible w the model proposed)

Why invest in a public good project over private business? Return is proportionate to impact and is non-extractive. Can't say that for private business..

Ok, nice. Then what happens if a project doesn't meet the expected impact? What happens if the project doesn't come to the seeing the light of the day at all?

Let's say you get the funding from investor (or a bank - this one sounds like a very far future tho). You try to build something. You don't succeed. Two questions here:

- from a perspective of potential projects: you want to build public good, therefore you don't want to take some for-profit business risks, like letting down your VCs and having to refund them somehow. Is that really attractive to builders?

- form a perspective of an potential investor: I invest my money, so I expect benefits and safety guards. In traditional business I get those. Do I get those in public goods then? Why should I choose public goods over the traditional startups if not?