The advice is: when faced with fully predictable startups, like cryptos, look for the properties that caused other startups to be the last one. When I did so I found convention to be powerful for social things, concentric distribution from an elite group or reason, and not being the first one. DarkCoin has those properties, and zerocash as someone pointed out will have some of them.
Sarcasm sign:
But you can strawman what I said, compress it into useless tautological advice, and win some karma points for it, so why shouldn’t you right? The point is winning karma, not believing true things, I keep forgetting :)
For the avoidance of doubt: I posted what I did because I thought it was correct, not in order to get karma. (And I’m as surprised as anyone by how much karma I got for it.)
The advice still seems pretty tautological to me, I’m afraid, or at least rather obvious: look for startups that have ended up winning and see if you can see what they did right. Isn’t that what everyone already does? (We could, I think, do with more looking at promising ones that have ended up losing and seeing what they did wrong. The winners are already highly visible and we aren’t likely to forget to look at them; the losers, not so much.)
And I don’t think I’ve ever seen such a thing as a “fully predictable startup”.
[EDITED to add: I see that the parent comment of this one is getting quite a lot of downvotes. For the record, none of them is mine.]
The advice is: when faced with fully predictable startups, like cryptos, look for the properties that caused other startups to be the last one. When I did so I found convention to be powerful for social things, concentric distribution from an elite group or reason, and not being the first one. DarkCoin has those properties, and zerocash as someone pointed out will have some of them.
Sarcasm sign: But you can strawman what I said, compress it into useless tautological advice, and win some karma points for it, so why shouldn’t you right? The point is winning karma, not believing true things, I keep forgetting :)
For the avoidance of doubt: I posted what I did because I thought it was correct, not in order to get karma. (And I’m as surprised as anyone by how much karma I got for it.)
The advice still seems pretty tautological to me, I’m afraid, or at least rather obvious: look for startups that have ended up winning and see if you can see what they did right. Isn’t that what everyone already does? (We could, I think, do with more looking at promising ones that have ended up losing and seeing what they did wrong. The winners are already highly visible and we aren’t likely to forget to look at them; the losers, not so much.)
And I don’t think I’ve ever seen such a thing as a “fully predictable startup”.
[EDITED to add: I see that the parent comment of this one is getting quite a lot of downvotes. For the record, none of them is mine.]
I’ll write about fully predictable startups at the open thread, may be a useful concept, and may be a waste