Nostr View

David @mleku - 28d

it even extends to VCs... because they have a big pile of money as well, the project doesn't have to have revenue for a long time. that's why there's no functional diference between damus and primal. both are not serving paying customers, but "investors"

1
0
3

Silberengel @Laeserin - 28d

The road to buggy clients and gay porn spam is paved with good intentions... and awe-dropping amounts of donor and investor money being wasted.

0
0
3

Silberengel @Laeserin - 28d

Yeah, it's such a weird space, here. Completely defies all free market dynamics because it's aflood with charity. Charities are, by definition, not meant to solve the problems they address. They exist to perpetuate themselves by alleviating problems. These aren't real investors. Real investors want a return on investment, and efficient development raises their returns. Why would an investor pay €500k for something that would be built better for €5k? He wouldn't, but they are. The only real investors we have, on Nostr, are the individual people and companies zapping, crowdfunding, and making contracts with suppliers. We're increasingly off in our own economic ecosystem.

1
0
3

David @mleku - 28d

yeah, gitcitadel is doing stuff mainly for academic and git-based software collab, i want to focus on discussions, chat and calendaring

1
1
3

Silberengel @Laeserin - 28d

Yeah, we aren't really doing anything with that.

0
0
3

Silberengel @Laeserin - 28d

It's common... in America. Particularly the West Coast. I'm used to European investors, particularly German ones. They are much more attentive and critical because they are poorer and worry about making a loss. American investors throw gigantic gobs of money at 10 projects. If one turns out, they break even. If two turn out, they turn a big profit. That works because they have such enormous amounts of money, and it means that they don't have to care what the other 8 do.

1
0
3

David @mleku - 28d

yeah, i'd prefer to work with investors with small cap and reasonable but attentive input on monitoring and having some input into the operations, but not a dominant role, of course. CEO is the one with veto power, and the investor has to trust them, primarily, and the CEO has to have a nose for bullshit in his contractors/employees

1
1
3

Silberengel @Laeserin - 28d

Yeah, attentive, reasonable investors are a blessing, for a business.

0
1
3

Silberengel @Laeserin - 28d

Yes, and we're too poor to invest, anyway. Even the investment funds here are surpringly tiny, unless they are government-backed. We're more savers than investors. But, people like to invest in *us*. Everyone knows we got no game and are honest and hardworking, to a fault. That's one reason they like to hire us. We get fronted a lot of trust because we have everyone's favorite flavor of autism: Can't lie, hyperfocuses, likes machines, good at maths.

2
1
3

Silberengel @Laeserin - 28d

The confusion arises in the massive gap between What American investors like (flashy stuff, built for influencers, tiktokers, and advertisers, massive audience you can capture to mine their data for your AI) and what PAYING users like (elegant, efficient, reliable stuff, that does something useful and makes sense running in a LAN, and good customer support) There is simply much more promise of fast 🤑, in the first one, but the second brings in steady income and is harder to dislodge with a competitor.

1
0
3
Showing page 1 of 1 pages