Jonny Mack
@nonlinear.eth
retroactive grants are cool but they require builders take on all the risk (build it and you *might* get *some* funding) an alternative ✨proactive✨ approach:
26 replies
16 recasts
86 reactions
Royal
@royalaid.eth
So, shares in a company?
1 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
Jonny Mack
@nonlinear.eth
kind of? key differences are: 1) funding (risk) happens before not after 2) flow of funds entirely onchain (verifiable, predictable) 3) uncapped upside (contributors receive pro rata exposure to project success) "shares in a company" is a legacy/web2 way of framing it: not incorrect, but not really correct either
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Royal
@royalaid.eth
Shares in a company are literally 400 year old ideas, so safe to say not web2 😉. Venture/angel investing has a similar profile of funding/risk. Stocks have potentially uncapped upside, see the chart of Berkshire Hathaway class A shares. I still don't see the difference in the fundamentals but am open to being wrong.
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Jonny Mack
@nonlinear.eth
pooling resources and sharing upside go back even further than 400y so in that sense you're correct: there's not much different here. *how* we do that matters, and has changed a lot. besides fabric contribution tokens, there's no technology or single financial instrument that contains all the properties you identified
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
ɃΞrn
@b7
hmm tokenization of shares is just that. If you do it in the right country like Switzerland you have full shareholder rights.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Jonny Mack
@nonlinear.eth
example? would love to see evidence of a tokenized share for a non public company that uses a non-upgradable protocol for distributing upside
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
ɃΞrn
@b7
www.aktionariat.com
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
