[vvpan]

Plenty wrong with tokens but I would remember that VC funding also comes with a lot of drawbacks and, in my opinion, is what is holding technical progress back. I am in a startup and VCs are preventing us from focusing on longer term goals like interoperable protocols. The VC game is simple - fund a "disrupting" company aka an extractive monopoly and cash out. In that light, even though we took VC funding some sort of cautious yet fair token raise would have made sense, it'd allow us to work out the product without compromising on longer term goals.

I understand the distrust for blockchain but there is also ideology in blockchain world that has not yet occurred in the greater world, that funding is broken and new alternatives are needed. Has somebody figured a perfect one - no. Is experimentation good? Yes.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Is experimentation good? Yes.

This isn’t experimentation, it’s re-running a scam. Experimentation means trying something new.

[vvpan]

A token is just a token, who uses it how and why is not intrinsic in the token itself. Stocks and bonds have been tokenized, why are those not scam? There are lots of tokens representing different things, economic models and with very different histories following their creation.

[smsm42]

Ah that's very easy question. Stocks and bonds have very heavy legal framework you can lean on in many situations. It doesn't mean you can't lose - stock investors lose they money all the time - but at least some scenarios are covered. With token nothing is covered, it's basically a naked bet on issuers and their ability to deliver. I don't say never bet - adults can decide for themselves - but if you bet, do it with open eyes.

[robocat]

> The VC game is simple

Good article on some of the less simple incentives of VC: https://pivotal.substack.com/p/making-markets-in-time -- however forewarning that the compelling parts are mixed in with a lot of waffle.

Personally all levels of VC seem like a grift to me.