Tell me why my Crypto Startup idea won't work | Hacker News Reader

Tell me why my Crypto Startup idea won't work

11 pointsminasmarios45 comments

I have an idea. Everyone here loves crypto (and have some) and loves startups too.

I want to create a coinbase for startup equity. Translation :you invest small sums of your cryptos in a startup of your choise.

Persuade me that it won't work with arguments based on:

1) innovation - someone already doing this?

2) legal issues - on conversional equity crowdfunding there are limitations and regulations. If we apply only cryptos, are there too?

3) usability/anything else

View on HN

1. It sounds like you're effectively making your own stock exchange, but with crypto instead of cash. I imagine the SEC will have many things to say about that. It could be legal, but you're not going to like the laws they'll make you follow.

2. In a real stock exchange, the company value is largely the volatile thing. In one backed with crypto, the price of a company will fluctuate more from the asset you're buying it with than the company's activity itself. If the price of bitcoin goes up, I own the same number of shares but worth fewer bitcoins. That seems like not what folks into crypto care about.

3. If a company puts all of its shares into this, it likely cannot ever ipo. That's going to turn off most investors. I would expect it's an all-in endeavor.

4. Companies accidentally losing their private key for unissued shares sounds like a very bad failure mode.

The idea is just that. Create a Nasdaq for early private tech startups - fixed valuations - funded with crypto.

For the Investors I think there is no problem with SEC, but for the fundable startups what could be a workaround?

I had this idea in 2016, i.e. offer a platform that lets people register their startups, they hire people + provide a service and enable them to provide equity securities to their employees + the founders (still using traditional contracts that represent the actual legal structure in the form of real-world legally binding contracts with a simultaneous existence as security tokens or whatever financial instruments make sense to early-stage startup employees) but issue ICO-based denominated shares that are then owned by the employees by their holding of the private keys of the wallet - could be operationally similar to ownership of present day ERC-20 tokens), and then enable them to be traded on DEXs if the employee has already vested parts of the crypto-shares/ERC-20 equivalent tokens. The real expense comes in a bit with the requirement of needing to still have a valid legal structure in place with contracts, with specific terms that still are valid with the existing legal framework in whatever country the platform would support. It is for sure viable but will require a lot of capital for regulatory compliance, and also will need to compete in the longer term against better capitalized companies like Coinbase that already have all the necessary traditional banking relationships and other tech companies that operate in adjacent DeFi fields (if they ever decide to compete, of course).

Like Coinbase could acquire Carta or one of those other startup equity focused companies and then use that user data to focus on the best startups to trial this concept with, and then roll it out publicly and then just totally kill your idea. I think it's definitely a good application of the technology and the existence of such a platform would structurally strengthen the crypto ecosystem over the long term.

The fact that Coinbase did a DPO instead of some kind of fancy DeFi-based offering is telling in their potential lack of conviction in the ability to offer public securities at this stage in the game through some of these smart contract based platforms. I'm sure @barmstrong and the Winklevoss brothers have spent a lot of time thinking about this

> The fact that Coinbase did a DPO instead of some kind of fancy DeFi-based offering is telling in their potential lack of conviction in the ability to offer public securities at this stage in the game through some of these smart contract based platforms. I'm sure @barmstrong has spent a lot of time thinking of this, I certainly would be if I was him.

I think the reason is very simple. Traditional markets have way more investable capital, which leads to better liquidity and higher price. Yes it is possible to issue an equity token, but credible companies will get better valuation and liquidity from traditional equity markets.

This is definitely the right answer - I am fully aware that this is the case, but I think it's a useful signal that indicates that these alternative capital technologies are not mature, and that instead of everyone trying to tokenize everything for their own business, maybe some rockstar programmers should maybe elect to build out the core infrastructure a bit more first.

Did you started actually working on the idea then?

Read the initial reply

The problem is regulatory restrictions, that since 2017, have been used to shut off capital flows to token sales.

Token sales were one of the most promising avenues toward the goal of widening the base of individuals that could participate as investors in the venture capital market:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11408-020-00366-0...

"The average ICO has almost 4700 contributors. The median contributor invests a relatively small amount. The ICO market appears to have successfully given access to the financing of innovation to a new class of investors, which is a long-standing public policy issue"

That being said, it's possible you could use the JOBS Act's provision for crowdsales to widen the base of individuals that could invest through your platform:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumpstart_Our_Business_Startup...

These do already exist and there are many of them already on both Ethereum and Binance Smart Contract networks. More will be coming with SORA/Polkadot and I suspect it won't be long before they are on Harmony, as well (basically any EVM compatible network will likely have these).

I'm not sure exactly on the terminology, but essentially most large DEXes (Decentralized Exchanges) will typically get involved in funding new coins. Typically what happens is a DEX will (either through governance of via the DEX developers) offer to "host" a new coin in their liquidity pools on the DEX, and boost that coin by incentivising users with additional rewards for proving liquidity (typically in the form of tokens for that given startup). These incentivised liquidity pools are called "farms" and launching a crypto startup in this way is typically called a "Initial Farm Offering" or "IFO".

There are also more projects on the horizon that aim to further this idea of providing liquidity to developers in exchange for coins.

I see an issue with the volatility of investment being paired with the volatility of crypto currencies. It’s like gambling turned to 11.

Just use stablecoins bro

DAAA!

Could you clarify how this has anything to do with crypto?

It seems to me that you're acting as a fundraising platform: people give you money, you pass it on to startups, and you guarantee these people that they own some equity in the startup.

The concept of "own some equity" is a legal concept, and this is what you have to nail down. Crypto is irrelevant to this conversation.

Instead of money, just Crypto. So early Startups/ Projects get funded as fast someone sends'em some coins. And the investors to be nerds/ crypto investors and can invest them on startups.

So the value is Startups will be really easily funded, fast and by anyone, disregarding the regulations and limits for fundraising with conventional money.

Again, the limitations with funding with money aren't a tech problem. The limitation aren't "regulations", or how "fast" you can send money. They're a legal one. There's literally no obstacle in wiring some startup some money. Where an obstacle DOES exist, is in you being able to credibly defend a claim on that equity in a court.

Imagine the following situation:

You: "I own 10% of the startup"

Judge: "You have no contract that proves that...."

You: "But I sent crypto instead of money!!"

Judge: "Oh in that case...!"

It's like when the word "crypto" is involved, people immediately surrender any critical thinking :-|

Actually a lot of people here hate crypto for various reasons. One big one is the disastrous environmental impact of the proof of work algorithm (yes we know Ethereum will try proof of stake soon since years).

1) innovation: a lot of people are already investing in startups. The main value of your idea is to do something existing, but with crypto. Which has most likely already been tried. It's not necessarily a bad idea. The execution is probably more important than the initial idea.

2) legal issues: why would using crypto avoid you the regulations ? I feel like it will make everything more difficult and confusing for everyone if you want to do it legally.

3) usability: you will most likely target a very small group of experts. crypto are not user-friendly.

Your startup idea may work. Some people are very much into crypto and you could target them. Personally I would consider the impact of my work to the society. The proof of work is a no-go for me, but you may not care.

Is there a reason to do this via crypto vs...any other way?

Aren't there rules / laws about selling equity in a company?

What good are these small sums?

Why would a startup want this?

How is it better for a startup than ordinary currency?

How is it better for a startup than experienced investors?

How is it better for a startup than common investment vehicles?

What is the obvious business case for the additional complexity and potential legal land mines?

The goal is to make anyone able to invest in a listed Startup.

But why? Unlike with a public company, startups have needs from their investors beyond just cash. VC firms aren't just wallets, they provide services, access, networking, support etc.

This would skyrockets the small investments on early stage projects -> more projects would grow -> they go to VCs when ready

Why would a startup want just anyone as an investor?

You have a two sided market. It needs to attract both investors and startups to be a legitimate vehicle.

"Everyone here loves crypto (and have some) ..."

Hahaha ... I think you are new to HN.

Yeah no kidding. Based on my reading the comments of other crypto posts on here it seems like 80% of the people here hate crypto and like 5% are in favor of it (the rest being neutral).

1. Only Accredited investors can invest in private startups.

2. Equity crowdfunding is a way around 1. but only too restrictive- limited fundraising, more disclosure, and follow-on venture/ traditional funding hard to come by.

Above is US-centric view. Using crypto instead of fiat currency is not a workaround regulations and reputation.

But look at BlockFi, it might offer you insight into workaround using crypto to raise an Angel/VC fund from crypto millionaires.

Just checked BlockFi, but it is only about interest. How could it be used to raise a fund?

Look at BlockFi from end to end not what it offers to crypto holders only. Return in the form of interest to crypto holders in return for lending the value of those crypto to borrowers and earning interest from them.

Offer crypto holders chance to be part of new crypto startups (people who made money through crypto want to pay forward to the crypto ecosystem) and fiscally disadvantaged/ sustainability people/ project (WSB ape story) without requiring them to sell their cryptos.

Edit: Also, I don't have all the answers, if I did, I would be executing the idea instead of talking about it on a forum. My reason to share is two folds:

1. I am aware of several crypto-lending startups prior to BlockFi that failed. BlockFi founders are geniuses to figure out a structure that works beautifully. By sharing, I am just exploring where else the similar structure could potentially work.

2. Sharing such ideas exposes me to potentially complementary-minded people who might have answers, I may not have, and explore pros and cons that I may not have considered. You never know who comes along in future endeavors.

Everything crypto is a ponzi scheme

How about you flip this question and ask people why it will work. I mean at least for me , I got so many naysayers around me so that I don't have to go HN and ask why my idea is bad :)

That idea was initiated in the ICO boom and failed miserably.

Most of the money was either blatantly stolen, hacked or the companies went broke when the price of bitcoin dropped by 80%.

Binance is already tokenizing equity on the public market (like Tesla stock). You may want to look into how they’re doing it.

I'd guess the answer is the same as - Why isn't Kickstarter doing this?

From your research why isn't Kickstarter doing it?

Kickstarter has a much different customer base. This would nee crypto investors, not retail buyers.

Are startups willing to take crypto in exchange for their share?

> Everyone here loves crypto (and have some) and loves startups too.

Not true at all, many here on HN are openly hostile towards it because they dismissed it at the time while others were made obscenely wealthy. Whether they own some is probably true, though.

> I want to create a coinbase for startup equity. Translation :you invest small sums of your cryptos in a startup of your choise.

First, you don't want to be the 'Coinbase' of anything... Really, its a horrible company run by what seem like the most incompetent staff they pouched from MtGox and I squarely blame YC and tyical SV insider tactics for what it's doing.

With that said: it's a cool idea that many of us have had throughout the years since Mike Hearn wasted funds on Lighthouse and pretty much abandoned a mediocre solution to a pressing problem and left everyone with a bad taste in their mouth about such a thing.

> Persuade me that it won't work with arguments based on 1-3.

Preface, I've been in the community since Satoshi was still on BTF: it's not that it won't work, in fact things like Pineapple Fund, Sean's Outpost/Satoshi Forest shows that many of us in the Bitcoin community are incredibly generous (with time and money) and want to use this tech to solve many problems that Megacorps profess to care about and want to solve, but amounts to merely fluff to sell to their PR departments.

1: Some of have tried, but nothing worth talking about since Lighthouse.

Boost VC is probably the closest thing I can think of, and their are other incubators that are open to Crypto based projects (I pitched at a meetup in Boulder and a person from Techstars followed up).

2: It's tricky, but if you remain in Bitcoin-only ecosystem their are few to no regulations or bylaws depending on where you operate from--this is a feature, not a bug. But this opens the need for arbiters and custodianship, which is frowned upon since this is supposed to be a trust less based system, but really that is what things like multi-sig escrow and smart contract oracles are for.

Reputation matters in Bitcoin, and contributors like Andreas who have made Bitcoin their life's work with little to no compensation were later rewarded by the community--and he deserved it!

Bitcoiners, the early adopters more so, are seriously the most paranoid people in the tech World outside of say whistle blowers working for Intelligence firms in my opinion--and some like Reality Winner really didn't do a good enough job to be on par with someone who sent $50 to a DNM back in the early days.

3: Many issues here, to many to outline them all.

But as mentioned before its creating a trustless transparent system; which will be your biggest hurdle since I'm guessing you don't have any credibility in this ecosystem either.

Second, what is the ROI on this, otherwise what you are trying to create is just a charity with no real sustainable growth model. Even Non-profit/NGO often have some outside funding from a foundation or a vested party interested in maintaining it's existence. Think about who would want you to stay alive and work back from that.

The newest wave of Bitcoiners since 2017 (2013 really) are the money-centric ones that likely won't fund any of the projects like that I mentioned before to help causes.

Personally speaking, I'm moving to more Bitcoin friendly countries/environments for this is exact reason. The US is stifling progress and other countries have a more favorable view on Bitcoiners and their businesses, so I'm off to greener pastures.

But, I need some time away from this Industry--I had my own fintech startup in BTC for ~5 years and disrupted an entrenched Industry in that time, and then got into the enterprise 'blockchain solutions' department for a Megacorp.

If you're looking for consultant I'd be willing to do that in the interim, but if you give me 6-12 months I could join the team and do some legwork as I could probably be of more use then and tell you where/how to incorporate and what are potential strategies for not just taxes but also securing your streams of revenue etc...

Do you have a Github or any portfolio of past projects? Your post history doesn't seem to reveal much other than a job posting for a freelancer.

>Not true at all, many here on HN are openly hostile towards it because they dismissed it at the time while others were made obscenely wealthy.

I won't mince my words. People hate cryptocurrencies here because they are shit, the technology is shit. The only reason anyone buys Bitcoin is as you said, because they want to become part of the pyramid scheme.

> Everyone here loves crypto (and have some) and loves startups

I rest my case:

> I won't mince my words. People hate cryptocurrencies here because they are shit, the technology is shit. The only reason anyone buys Bitcoin is as you said, because they want to become part of the pyramid scheme.

With that said, show me another payment rail-system that can do what LN does and I can settle and pay for things in real time instantly and for no cost at any time, on any day and I'll be open to agreeing with your point.

Except I already know you can't, and what many of you think is 'vaporware' actually works; just check out a DJ set in front of the San Francisco Mint that used Bitcoin to pay the DJ and the music producers in real time in with a 10%-90% split. And amyriad of other services mentioned in that substack.

Just because YOU don't use it, and have no use for it doesn't mean it's 'shit' it just means you can't or don't have any usecases for it and nothing more.

[0]: https://lightninglabs.substack.com/p/streaming-sats-why-bitc...

The problem here is the use of the term "crypto" and/or "cryptocurrencies". True Bitcoiners hate the use of the term "crypto" becouse it lumps bitcoin in with all the shitcoins - ie. _all_ other cryptocurrencies except bitcoin (including, and especially ethereum). Bitcoin is _not_ "a" cryptocurrency. Bitcoin is bitcoin - nothing more, nothing less.

It is the initial coin offering thing coupled with a good user interface?

Exactly that

Could work. Alternatives probably exists but that just confirms the idea is ok. Would need some marketing to bootstrap - what good is an empty market place?

> Could work.

I think the fact that alts/ICO failed as bad as they did proved it could never work. Working with existing infrastructure, and I don't think ETH is worth consideration at this point, is the only way to get any credibility given who is investing into crypto these days.

DOGE will always be a funny meme thing, regardless of it's price rise: it was actually where we sent people to get used to the ecosystem as 'training wheels' Elon just made it hysterical and people bought into the hype, but as you can see he won't put it on Tesla or SpaceX's balance sheet for a reason.

Though if I'm honest it would be funny as hell to see a DOGE logo on the side of a Starship.

That's true! I event sent my friend a couple of DOGE for his birthday. SpaceX may put it in their sheets, but for early-stage startups this could be a way to be get funded from crypto investors who got big early on.

ICOs were also big in the last crypto bubble and a lot of people got burned. So maybe it is too early for a revival.

However ICOs are certainly a sounder idea than NFT artworks.

> However ICOs are certainly a sounder idea than NFT artworks.

Both are bad ideas hatched from the ETH cohorts trying to make themselves relevant while selling buzzword laden pipe dreams and vapourware to idiot heads of state (Putin) [0] and imbecilic corpos with no idea of what they are doing.

This has to be a con by Vitalik, there is no way this guy really went from doing unSystem work to cryptokitties and NFTs.

Source: I worked for those imbecilic corpos.

0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyBwRl-sDzs

Reply on news.ycombinator.com