If you have been in the "crypto" space for awhile, you have seen a hyper charged project cycle go around a few times. Because of this, there is some idea that "new" is better than old, and teams are much more likely to launch new things than update old things.
When is a project finished? This is not just a question of crypto, this is generally a philosophical question about the lifespan of ideas, and our obligation to them. If I write a book, I am not obligated to write a sequel, no matter how many people pay 10 dollars for it. Or am I? If a fictional drama book sells 20 million copies, is the writer thus obligated to continue the story? Fans say yes.
What all crypto projects do have is "buy-in", generally you have paid money for something, whether it is a monkey NFT, a wallet full of different goodies, an "account", a share in a venture, or a "stake".
People with stake generally do feel like they are owed something.
What is the relationship between project owners/developers/teams and "community"?.
And what are the narratives behind these relationships? Its no wonder that so many projects put so much emphasis on "community size". There is a relationship in incentives as well, if project runners salaries depend on selling more things, then they have to keep the community eager to buy more things.
What if project runners are not making any money or there is in fact a cost to continue running the project? Are they still obligated to continue?
The best use for crytpo is stake in a venture.
https://x.com/EcoInstant/status/1782185845534966020
I have personally considered that the best sort of projects are really "community funds". This is really an old world model, there are funds, and shares, and you can calculate Net Asset Value or Asset Backed Value of these shares.
There is some irony that this is the model that is most problematic for US regulators. It is the very definition of the dreaded "security" designation. Has this caused projects to avoid certain best practices of fund managers and be more risky with the money invested to them? In some cases I think yes.
Valuation of Projects
Now managing funds is not the only things projects do. In the software space, it is a valid bet that a development team with $2 million dollars could produce in a year something that is worth more than $2 million dollars. Its not a sure bet, but it is valid. Some developers are thinking that they could make something valuable with much less money - this is an idea and execution space, where everyone can compete.
Just like in indiedev Web2 game space, everyone has a game they want you to play and be part of the "community".
So there is much more than just math involved with project valuation, we have to think about structure, incentives and the relationship between parties, including expectations.
What are the projects that have lasted the longest under crypto conditions?
I would like to see some discussion on HIVE about different projects. HIVE is an ecosystem, and some people have cleverly observed that the value of HIVE should be derived by the projects built on it. Whether it be Splinterlands, 3speak, inLEO, podping, dlux or dCity; these and many more things built and being built on HIVE make up the lifeblood of blockchain.
I am making a HIVE-wide essay contest, and this is just the prequil. I am putting together a prize pool, right now the grand prize is worth over 500 HIVE, but please reach out to me if you would like to sponsor this contest. This contest will last the month of June, and my next post on this matter will reveal the specific details on entry requirements.
Help with the prize pool! Get your project logo on the promotional material! Reach out to me!
