I think that is what has lead to the dichotomy that the project with the most developers has the least funding.

Developers love working on something groundbreaking and innovative, and they can easily grasp vague, architectural concepts, whereas the most-popular things to fund are simply variants of things someone is already familiar with, or step-wise improvements upon something already existing. They've seen that xyz can make money elsewhere, so bring some of that money here.

Saying we're going to invent new data structures and algorithms and create new markets is a real funding turn-off because nobody knows if it is even possible, if they even understand the concept at all. It's only now, that we've proved the concept and have working models, that we're attracting people interested in funding the project.

Before, everyone was like

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

-1

I just wanna make a wallet that’s easy for anyone to pay for something and/or prove something.

That actually is much easier to get funding for.

TBH, we don't actually know, if this thing will ever make us any significant amount of money. We could eventually eek out enough side-gig money, supporting people's instances and adding bespoke features and etc., to keep us motivated to continue working on it, but that might be all.

Because we're designing it to be as forkable, runnable, and customizeable, as possible, we're sort of demonetizing the entire market for knowledge bases. Once it's been built, no one will pay us to build it a second time. They'll just ask their AI to "please build me an Alexandria, but in blue".

That's probably why it feels so much like charity, instead of like a get-rich-quick scheme. More like a go-broke-slowly scheme. 😏

But, you know, our ancestors didn't plant trees and build cathedrals, so that they can have trees and cathedrals. They built them so that the people who come after them can have trees and cathedrals. We call that "low time-preference development".