They’re quite different. The prize association doesn’t get paid anything. When you get down to it, it’s handing out cash. What it does get is a jump in technology being out there.
So, what does it get from the failures? All it gets from the failures is broader spread of alternate techniques. Of course, for the prize association to get any benefit from that, the losing teams need to be getting benefit from them too (barring theft, which can happen, but the losers are still more likely to benefit than not).
Also, strong teams can move directly to a credible winning bid.
In Swoopo, the first movers are essentially guaranteed to lose. Until the rules changed, it was a terrible move to be one of the first bidders, if there were any people around who didn’t use this rule who’d get the auction up into winnable territory for you.
I’m well aware of the merits of such prizes. My question was why they are “less scammy”. The prize association is still soliciting $X of research expenditure at a cost of $<<X, and the difference is borne over the participants. It’s not obvious or necessary that those participants are going to come out ahead. Without second-guessing the participants’ non-pecuniary motives, it’s structurally identical to Swoopo, which is why they both feature as examples in the original post.
As mentioned in my original response, this may very well be tangential to anything the OP (or anyone other than me) thinks is relevant. The value judgement of “scammy” vs. “less scammy” just stood out, and I wanted to query where it came from.
The ones I know about are the X-Prize and the NASA Lunar Lander Challenge. In both cases, the prize helped motivate and secure funding for something that the competitors wanted to do anyway, for their own tech-development purposes. While the amount spent exceeded the prize, the cost to meet the prize goals rather than simply do what they wanted to do anyway was much less (I have no good estimate for how much less).
The prize also helps the companies get investment, since now you have a source of revenue that only has the risk of “a competitor will do it better”, and doesn’t have the additional risk of “we’ll be the best, but no customers will show up”.
I’m not opposing anything. I’m asking why one thing is seen as “less scammy” compared to another. Chances are it was merely a throwaway comment by the OP and has no bearing on anything.
They’re quite different. The prize association doesn’t get paid anything. When you get down to it, it’s handing out cash. What it does get is a jump in technology being out there.
So, what does it get from the failures? All it gets from the failures is broader spread of alternate techniques. Of course, for the prize association to get any benefit from that, the losing teams need to be getting benefit from them too (barring theft, which can happen, but the losers are still more likely to benefit than not).
Also, strong teams can move directly to a credible winning bid.
In Swoopo, the first movers are essentially guaranteed to lose. Until the rules changed, it was a terrible move to be one of the first bidders, if there were any people around who didn’t use this rule who’d get the auction up into winnable territory for you.
I’m well aware of the merits of such prizes. My question was why they are “less scammy”. The prize association is still soliciting $X of research expenditure at a cost of $<<X, and the difference is borne over the participants. It’s not obvious or necessary that those participants are going to come out ahead. Without second-guessing the participants’ non-pecuniary motives, it’s structurally identical to Swoopo, which is why they both feature as examples in the original post.
As mentioned in my original response, this may very well be tangential to anything the OP (or anyone other than me) thinks is relevant. The value judgement of “scammy” vs. “less scammy” just stood out, and I wanted to query where it came from.
The ones I know about are the X-Prize and the NASA Lunar Lander Challenge. In both cases, the prize helped motivate and secure funding for something that the competitors wanted to do anyway, for their own tech-development purposes. While the amount spent exceeded the prize, the cost to meet the prize goals rather than simply do what they wanted to do anyway was much less (I have no good estimate for how much less).
The prize also helps the companies get investment, since now you have a source of revenue that only has the risk of “a competitor will do it better”, and doesn’t have the additional risk of “we’ll be the best, but no customers will show up”.
The second, third and fourth paragraphs each list a substantial structural difference from Swoopo. That they share one feature isn’t as big.
Do you also oppose matching grants, where the recipient also needs to put in $X to get the money?
I’m not opposing anything. I’m asking why one thing is seen as “less scammy” compared to another. Chances are it was merely a throwaway comment by the OP and has no bearing on anything.