The Coin Center
We have found that the best way to deal with policy makers and regulators when something new and threatening and dangerous looking comes around is to educate, educate, educate, educate. You can hire expensive lobbyists, you can try the “ignore and deal with it later” approach, and you can try operating in other more welcoming locations. But in our view the best approach is to take the time and effort to explain things, listen to the concerns, get the best and brightest minds involved to work things out together and come to the right answers.
It is in this spirit that a new organization called the Coin Center has launched. The Coin Center will be led by Jerry Brito who has done some of the best Bitcoin education and advocacy work in his former role at George Mason University’s Mercatus Center. So Jerry really won’t be doing anything new here. But he will be able to focus 100% of his time on this work and will have more financial and organization support to do it.
The Washington Post has a good article explaining the Coin Center and who is initially behind it.
I would like to thank Alex Morcos of Chaincode Labs and Balaji Srinivasan of Andreessen Horowitz for all the hard work they did bringing the Coin Center to life. Without their persistence, I don’t think this would have happened.
USV is proud to be a financial supporter of the Coin Center along with a handful of the most active entrepreneurs and investors in the blockchain sector. We will be reaching out broadly to everyone who has an interest in this sector in the coming months to get involved in some way. Technologies such as cryptocurrencies, bitcoin, and the blockchain are important, fundamental, and will foster innovation for decades to come. We must make sure that policy makers and regulators are well educated and informed so that they will put forward policies that will accelerate the development of these technologies, not retard them.
Comments (Archived):
Applause gentlemen. Your huge contribution will pay you back in spades, I’m sure.
post..thank for sharing wonderful post. this is a awesome post man !!!
It’s a great decision to educate, educate, educate, educate from the very beginning when attempting to do anything new that fundamentally changes finance.
Education is great, but there’s a fundamental underlying assumption that’s false: that policy makers are neutral and have pure motives and intentions. If only we educate policy makers, they’ll do the right thing…A more realistic view of the way policy actually is made is that policy makers have competing motivations.* Which elected public official appoints me? Which policy will help him get re-elected?* Which sets of policies / public debates / rhetoric will catapult my own elected office campaign?* Which sets of policies can I use to best ensure there are lavish conferences in lush locales that will be funded by whatever rules I pass?* Who butters whose bread?
Of course. That’s the reality. But educating them and their staffers helps way more than you would imagine to overcome that. Once they realize that these innovations might help them (ie avoid the 3.5% tax on their online political contributions, for example), you’d be shocked how wide their eyes open up
Parent comment wants to paint a broad brush in part saying “no point in trying these guys suck they all suck”. [1] Instead of working within and manipulating with accepted best practices.It’s the type of comment that is frequently on HN (with the hacker crowd) and people who don’t understand human nature and nuance.[1] It’s every man for himself. Duh. Get used to it.
Agreed.Political environments are crappy environments.But, if you know the lay of the land (egos, weaknesses, weapons) you can still get to your destination.
Education is key, as a step to lowering barriers for change
Why not call it The Blockchain Center?
Good question. I was not involved in the branding of this
I wonder who was involved in the branding then. Point being if you are spending money to set up something like this you need professional help with the naming.My point is different people have different opinions on this. If it was thought up by the short list of people involved with no help from people who are experienced at naming that’s a fail.Anyway to repeat “coin center” is better (see my comments) than “blockchain center”.
I love the idea of “coin center” precisely because it challenges the linguistic reification of social capital as inherently non-commidity. My respect for Fred and his associates grows every day when I see the nuance of what they don’t even know they are doing.
Coin Center doesn’t resonate with me.
Me either. Blockchain has some groove to it.
That domain name was already taken…hahaha
Coin is more open ended. They want to cover all cryptocurrency technology including Bitcoin. Their target audiences are government/regulators and the public at large, so “coin” is a friendly term anyone can relate to.
Bad Marketing 101.This is not a physical interaction where users can relate to an offline concept ( say, desktop ).This is basically an HTTP equivalent. It needs a new name ( like Internet ) and then let the conceptual name evolve ( like web ).Major whiff.
As I commented “coin center” isn’t great but it’s better than “blockchain center”.This isn’t science it’s art. Different artists have different opinions. This is the way I see it from my perch.
That’s the interesting thing about art.Breakthrough art touches everyone. So does break through design.Bullshit art is bullshit for people who want to bullshit about art. Just like bullshit sport stats are for people who want to bullshit about sports stats.@wmoug:disqus / @fredwilson:disqus – set me up with somebody who really wants to make BlockChains happen. Get someone to prove to me that this is RailRoad for Tx and I’ll do the BlockChain messaging framework for free, just to prove to LE that art can be categorized.Again, the categories are:- UNIVERSALLY RECOGNIZED EXCELLENCEIn 1986, my 61 year old father, who knew nothing about basketball except that I played it and like it, watched Micheal Jordan, on TV, win a game for the Bulls, in OT, during the Christmas holidays. At the end of the game, he said, ‘You can tell that guy is a superstar.’Did MJ win every game? No. Could smart people with very little understanding of hoops see how good he was, easily? Yes.Universally recognized excellence.2) SKILLED BULLSHITSUBSET A) TECHNICAL WANKING ( jazz is a major offender )SUBSET B) INFLAMMATORY ( modern art a major offender. )SUBSET C) FILLER ( visual versions of Upworthy, etc / PAP music – http://grantland.com/hollyw… )3) UNSKILLED HACKERY ( self explanatory ).People who are just starting out are not categorized, You need some reps before you get to where you are going to be….then we can be judgemental about how good you are.
More or less what I am saying as well in my comment.
A few reasons. While “coin center” is not the best, for a few reasons it’s better than “blockchain center”.1) Blockchain is a new concept. It doesn’t resonate with the general public in any way. It has no panache at all. Brian Williams on Nightly News saying “a report was released by “The BlockChain Center” will leave people scratching their heads. (Or their block heads.)2) Coin is an established word that in general has positive connotations. Sounds even a bit classy. Sounds old school “coin collecting” etc.I’m not going to tell you that I think “coin center” is good. But it’s better than “blockchain center” in a pinch.Naming is important. There is a whole bru-ha-ha going on because of the “Islamic State” which is a great name for what they are trying to convey. Simple and using “state” adds legitimacy and panache (which is why there is a backlash in France against calling it that).
Nope.If you were right here, then the world’s most profitable web site would have flopped. Google has none of the ‘advantages’ that you and William list ( not classy, not connected to legitimacy or panache, more silly than friendly).@wmoug:disqus you know better than to say that open ended is good.Empty vessel names have a lot of advantages and they are most appropriate when bringing a NewNewNew offering (New Product / New Category / New Concept) to market.”Blockchain, WTF is that?’ is, in fact, the best reaction, as it provides BlockChain proponents an invitation to explain WTF Blockchain is & all the wondrous things it will do (yikes, I sound like Seth Godin – Trout & Ries may hunt me down and violently remove me from the Positioning Freakball HoF).In this specific case, it also distances you from Mt Gox & the Winklevii.+1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000If you are correct & the BlockChain is a transactional revolution on the scale of railroads, combustion engine automobiles ( ever notice that ‘horseless carriage’ never caught on – classy, connected to the past, etc? ), freight containers & the Internet, those folks are the Snake Oil Bump that precedes the Massive Legitimate Adoption (sounds like historical events or biblical parables……’Grandpa, tell us the story of the Massive Legitimate Adoption and don’t leave out the Snake Oil Bump – that’s the best part!).13-14 years ago, ‘Google, WTF is that?’ was a fair question (too bad you can’t say ‘type blockchain.com into Netscape and try it’).The issue that Blockchain has is that it is a deep in the stack technical concept. Everybody loved Windows & Office, nobody who paid the bills actually knew how they worked ( which explains why C++ never made it mainstream – say, into a SNL skit……….).Notice any pattern between RailRoad, AutoMobile, InterNet & BlockChain?Geek chic is having its day in the sun but geek interests & issues will never be cool.If that is a little on the punch-drunk marketing geek side of things…….I think I am not yet acclimatized to the altitude in CGY…… 😀
If you were right here, then the world’s most profitable web site would have flopped. Google has none of the ‘advantages’ that you and William list ( not classy, not connected to legitimacy or panache, more silly than friendly, ).We can stop right there and bang that one out of the way.That’s a common meme that goes around by people saying names don’t matter. I hear that all the time.Google had the advantage of not only a boatload of money (and not having to make any money) but most importantly a metric shit ton of free publicity. They could have called themselves “rapist” and done well (well maybe not..)Advantages that google had (and for that matter Yahoo before them and ebay or craigslist) clearly defy gravity. Because with a ton of free press you can. In the early days (and ’98 was still early) press was eager to talk about two young “google guys”.Not to mention the fact that google is an actual service as opposed to a “The NRA”.Actually let’s take “The NRA”. It stands for “National Rifle Association”. That doesn’t sound anywhere near as confusing or scary and evokes actually frontiersman woodsyness.Also of interest rebranding of AARP:http://blog.amsterdamprinti…Separately I am not arguing against funky names to draw attention. I think that in some cases that is a good idea. But “blockchain center” nuance wise, in my opinion, doesn’t fall into that narrow category. And also the fact that you are trying to come up with a name to get OLD PEOPLE WITH GRAY HAIR to agree with you it’s probably best to stay away from something that will confuse them.
If they need old people with grey hair to help them, they are screwed from the get go.BlockChain is the concept that has a chance to beak through, It is not a funky name. It is an empty vessel that can be filled with brand meaning.I disagree with most of your statements re: Google. The product was ‘indiscernible from magic.’ Money and press followed massive legitimate adoption (you can be a smidge cynical every now & then LE ;-). Anyone who experienced it told everyone they knew about it for the next 3 days.Same goes for iPad (remember the jokes about how bad that name was?). But, it was an empty vessel that got filled (to the top, with moola).
The blockchain is an enabling piece of technology, just like the database was. Of course few people get excited at the database itself, but many more users are touched by the database applications.
I am ignorant, but the analogy stack sees to be:Blockchain – http InternetBitcoins – message boards? – email?? – web sites??? – search???? – socialIf it is the internet of transactions, those ?????????? become user layer services that are indiscernible from Magic.
I grow up in Quebec and we english speakers were often lovingly referred to as Blockheads !Yes – that is a completely irrelevant 🙂
Excellent and much needed initiative!Jerry Brito is indeed a great choice to run this. For those interested in his view, Siân Jones did an excellent 20-minute interview with him for our podcast [23:26 to 44:08]: https://soundcloud.com/epic…
Bitcoin is the Internet circa 1994, all over again, and I wrote that we needed this initiative 9 months ago. We used to have a similar group called CommerceNet that did a pretty similar thing back then. (I was chairman of Commercet Canada)Is this a US-focused group, or will they work and build bridges with other countries?
except, most of that software tech was iterative-meaning it took paper stuff and put it online. Bitcoin is very different. New frontier.
the internet was a new frontier in 1994-95. it spun a number of innovations following its early days, no?bitcoin is a little more difficult to muster and understand, but so was the internet in 1991, if you tried to get an internet email back then, it wasn’t for the faint of heart.
agree, but email is a lot less disruptive than bitcoin.
Or do we just take that disruption for granted now ?
good question-except mail is different than currency.
email change the world and how we work more than anything I can think of.
That is a good distinction. Email did not threaten the status quo substitutes (fax, long distance calling, postal service, dhl, fedex, …?) for a long time. It did not have too many forces actively campaigning against it (any?). It spread slowly, grew organically and the other changes (HTML, lynx Mosaic) slowly built the tsunami. The internet came out of CERN and most of the world did not care about and was not threatened by a communication layer being built to help physicists communicate more frequently. For the most part, the lay public’s emotions during the initial days of the internet were curiosity and indifference.I think the lay public’s emotions around bitcoin is a mix of fear, uncertainty, curiosity and indifference. Bitcoin does threaten some seriously large status quo players. So yes it is disruptive and yes it is great but it is not quite the same context as when internet was launched.
Internet in 1991 didn’t have appeal such that the average person had a need for it and could use it (was text based). So there was no way they could have the aha moment to understand what it could do for them. However it was chicken and egg because there wasn’t much it could do for the average person.I had a delphi account in the early 90’s and tried it but didn’t use it. It didn’t have anything or solve any problem that I had. At the same time I was doing C programming (or trying to). And I had already owned and operated a Unix system. So it wasn’t for “lack of understanding” but more “lack of a killer app” to motivate me.So while it was difficult (because of the interface) the fact that it didn’t give me anything or solve a problem was the impediment to me going forward with it.People (and animals) get incredibly smart and motivated when there is something that they want. A good example is how kids learn at a very early age to work the remote on a TV.Another example is how animals and pets will get very smart and creative when there is something they want (such as food). [1][1] Just bought a timed feeder for the cat and a comment online said “my cat has already figured out how to open this thing up and get the food before the timer”. (Having the device now I can see how that is possible).
As soon as there was email the market was made and it never stopped from there.
No, e-mail was not enough to get the Internet going because e-mail is not interactive, and dial-up to a few central e-mail servers was enough.What got the Internet going was HTML and the associated Web browsers that permitted 100 million interactive Web sites — dial-up to a few central servers, as for e-mail, couldn’t do that.
Not disagreeing that browsers kicked it into high gear.I was part of that.But if you every built a public company pre email and post you would certainly disagree.I lived in SF, managed Europe, reported into Singapore and traveled close to a million miles a year and at every hotel there were hundreds of faxes waiting for me.Email then and now is the killer ap.
exactly. funny how pets get instantly smarter when there is food involved!!
I’ve listened to many others and yourself make comparisons to the early days of the net.And above to initiatives that we all were involved in back in the day.I think this is not really on the money from my perspective.Great impact. Huge changes. Certainly. From that level of course.But this is not the same as the foundations and culture are completely different.And this is about money which changes everything.Electric and self driving cars will change the world. They are only vaguely comparative to the invention of the automobile.
Yes, and No. The analogy in my mind is about the approach/process for focusing Bitcoin’s success. see attached from my post, which I’ve re-read and was bang on. http://startupmanagement.or…
I hear you and I’ll reread.My pushback is that your block diagram, while excellent, was relevant at the dawn of the internet as well.For that reason, I question it honestly. The world is different.
I dunno. Regulators and legislastors work the same way.
Would be great if you could do a 2 paragraph summary of that here.
“Therefore, we may need to fund a new organization, or strengthen an existing one, as a non-profit organization that will be recognized as a global authority on Bitcoin, and whose sole mission will be to educate, remove barriers, advocate, and combat legal and regulatory barriers that are being erected to block Bitcoin’s success. This type of organization could take a page from what CommerceNet did, circa 1994-2001.” Jan 3 2014
Electric and self driving cars will change the world. They are only vaguely comparative to the invention of the automobile. Sorry, I see no chance of the second for at least 50 years, more like 200, and no chance of anything very real about the first for at least 20 years, maybe hundreds of years.For the first, it strikes me that, no matter what physics, chemistry, materials science, etc. does, for at least hundreds of years a 15 gallon tank of gasoline or Diesel oil will just be easier, cheaper, more desirable. Or whatever the real energy source is, fossil fuels, solar energy to electric power or taking CO2 to hydrocarbons, wind driving electric generators, nuclear fission or fusion, it will just be overall more desirable to have a 15 gallon tank of liquid hydrocarbons in the car as one of the steps in the energy flow. Sure, might use the hydrocarbons to run an internal combustion engine to turn an electric generator to charge a battery and/or drive an electric motor to drive the wheels, but, still, want that 15 gallon tank.In contrast, all electric asks for a lot in battery technology and, then, the electric grid; it asks too much. That tank of liquid will be just so darned much easier.For self-driving cars, no real hope: What we have now is really just a pull a rabbit out of a hat magic show and not really self-driving in any real sense; those cars are essentially on tracks and about as self-driving as a computer controlled subway train, also on tracks. Or compare with a computer controlled dump truck in a strip mine where the truck is guided along a few well designed paths by a lot of electronic sensors and signaling.For the Google cars, Google first mapped the streets and everything on them and around them to less than 1 centimeter. The mapping gives precise locations of each traffic light, each curb, each painted line on the road, etc. Then, on such thoroughly mapped streets, the cars can essentially follows tracks.The cars can drive themselves only on such very carefully mapped streets and only as long as the streets don’t change very much.In no sense do the cars actually drive themselves in any way comparable to what a human does. E.g., humans can find the traffic lights, and the Google cars can’t. Move the traffic lights, and the Google cars are helpless. On an unmapped street, the Google cars are helpless.Put up a sign about detours, and the Google cars can’t read and understand the sign; because we don’t know how to write software that can read and actually understand because we don’t know how to program a computer in understand in any very real sense.Likely if a Google car encounters something very different, then it will just stop. Thus could have some gigantic traffic jams for little or no reason. That is, the system would be delicate, fragile.Really want to take self-driving cars seriously? Okay: For each area to have such cars, have some central computer control. Along all the roads put a lot of, say, microwave transmitters to communicate with and control the cars. Do a lot with GPS and likely a lot with sensors on, in, along sides of, etc. the roads. Then the cars are basically running on tracks, electronically defined. For any unusual condition, the car just stops and asks a human. It’s not self driving if only because it isn’t even driving, that is, is just following tracks.So, the big change would not be the cars but the roads! We’d convert all the relevant roads to electronically defined tracks and have a lot of central computer control.Uh, right: When such a car gets to my street, I won’t have paid for all that electronic nonsense, and the car could easily get confused, especially in my driveway. Net, we’re talking a slight of hand magic show and not something real.
You may be right but my point had nothing to do with their inevitability but with the impact and the status quo of the society when they do happen .
Electric and self driving cars will change the world. They are only vaguely comparative to the invention of the automobile. Sorry, I see no chance of the second for at least 50 years, more like 200, and no chance of anything very real about the first for at least 20 years, maybe hundreds of years.For the first, it strikes me that, no matter what physics, chemistry, materials science, etc. does, for at least hundreds of years a 15 gallon tank of gasoline or Diesel oil will just be easier, cheaper, more desirable. Or whatever the real energy source is, fossil fuels, solar energy to electric power or taking CO2 to hydrocarbons, wind driving electric generators, nuclear fission or fusion, it will just be overall more desirable to have a 15 gallon tank of liquid hydrocarbons in the car as one of the steps in the energy flow. Sure, might use the hydrocarbons to run an internal combustion engine to turn an electric generator to charge a battery and/or drive an electric motor to drive the wheels, but, still, want that 15 gallon tank.In contrast, all electric asks for a lot in battery technology and, then, the electric grid; it asks too much. That tank of liquid will be just so darned much easier.For self-driving cars, no real hope: What we have now is really just a pull a rabbit out of a hat magic show and not really self-driving in any real sense; those cars are essentially on tracks and about as self-driving as a computer controlled subway train, also on tracks. Or compare with a computer controlled dump truck in a strip mine where the truck is guided along a few well designed paths by a lot of electronic sensors and signaling.For the Google cars, Google first mapped the streets and everything on them and around them to less than 1 centimeter. The mapping gives precise locations of each traffic light, each curb, each painted line on the road, etc. Then, on such thoroughly mapped streets, the cars can essentially follows tracks.The cars can drive themselves only on such very carefully mapped streets and only as long as the streets don’t change very much.In no sense do the cars actually drive themselves in any way comparable to what a human does. E.g., humans can find the traffic lights, and the Google cars can’t. Move the traffic lights, and the Google cars are helpless. On an unmapped street, the Google cars are helpless.Put up a sign about detours, and the Google cars can’t read and understand the sign; because we don’t know how to write software that can read and actually understand because we don’t know how to program a computer to understand in any very real sense.Likely if a Google car encounters something very different, then it will just stop. Thus could have some gigantic traffic jams for little or no reason. That is, the system would be delicate, fragile.Really want to take self-driving cars seriously? Okay: For each area to have such cars, have some central computer control. Along all the roads put a lot of, say, microwave transmitters to communicate with and control the cars. Do a lot with GPS and likely a lot with sensors on, in, along sides of, etc. the roads. Then the cars are basically running on tracks, electronically defined. For any unusual condition, the car just stops and asks a human. It’s not self driving if only because it isn’t even driving, that is, is just following tracks.So, the big change would not be the cars but the roads! We’d convert all the relevant roads to electronically defined tracks and have a lot of central computer control.Uh, right: When such a car gets to my street, I won’t have paid for all that electronic nonsense, and the car could easily get confused, especially in my driveway. Net, we’re talking a slight of hand magic show and not something real.
But to use James’s quote from yesterday “bitcoin is more like a library than a bar”.
Well, I’d rather say it’s still very “geeky”, in the pre-browser days for the Internet, as an analogy. But that’s ok, because it’s when developers get into it first that interesting things start to happen.
Legit. Great to see this.
engagement. It’s a wonderful thing. Usually you get closer to what you want when you practice it.
This is the right tactic. Education will get you so far. When I was on the CME/PAC we did a lot of educating. At the same time, we found that a series of small donations to both sides of the aisle (50/50) kept the door open for us. That is the key-having a door open. Because then you can “educate” when you most need to educate. Post Sarbox and Dodd-Frank, the game in financial services has changed dramatically. Takes a lot more money to keep the door open-and because of uncertainty over regulation-there is a lot of back and forth over how they write them.
So lobbying is essentially educating, plus tips?
In a way. You need an open door so you have a chance to plead your case when things are bad-and an open door so you can develop a relationship and educate representatives about your industry. Only donations can do that-and I am talking about $1000-$2500 donations every year. That doesn’t “buy” a politician like a lot of people think. Many politicians are truly interested and want to be educated. They want what’s best for America-and the debate happens when we disagree. Good ones compile information from both sides and make a decision. With finance, one stroke of the pen can put you out of business.
You need an open door so you have a chance to plead your case when things are bad-and an open door so you can develop a relationship and educate representatives about your industry.Key point in life and it’s totally surprising to me how many people don’t understand this intuitively. [1] That doesn’t “buy” a politician like a lot of people think. And it’s amazing (and annoying) how many people think that that is the way it works.Many politicians are truly interested and want to be educated.Found that to be the case also with bureaucrats as well.That said, most people who “whine”, and I’ve said that many times on Avc before don’t want to do anything but say “the system sucks” and would spend no time of their own or put no effort into making their point know to someone they want to influence. Because as always they just want the easy no effort way of getting what they want. That’s for sure one of the reasons that people with money get what they want they not only take their time but spend money to educate the other side and convince them. But it can be done DIY there are certainly enough people around who can write and speak convincingly who will work for pennies conveying the point of someone who can’t.[1] I mean if I were a politician and a special interest group took the time to give me all the information on making the decision and the opposing side didn’t what do you think is going to happen? Part of selling is taking the time so that people can come to the right conclusion. You don’t just say “buy my widget it’s better”. And you don’t put the work on the “customer” to dig up the info on why your widget is better either.
Greetings from Manchester – the home of the computer.Educate people on Bitcoin?You VC’s are suckers for the next big thing. Your greed gets the better of you.It’s a pyramid scheme that comes straight outta Manhattan.Satoshi is ex-Goldmans.Bitcoin doesn’t make a difference that matters. if it did, you’d prove it but you can’t.It’s just bullshit darling.
There are so many risks associated with currency and financial system stability. For us,there is a solution – a new world cryptocurrency TiNeGe. Now this currency isabsolutely free hand out. On their website you can download the purse and get100 TNG.For those who do not know, the new world currency vengeance already handedout to all the people absolutely free. Called TiNeGe.,
Apparently the Web site for Coin Center has a CPU intensive infinite loop. This situation holds for Firefox 27.0.1 on an up to date Windows XP. Likely there is some badly written JavaScript.Often Business Insider also has this problem along with a massive memory leak that sends virtual memory address space usage out of the galaxy.AVC has no such problem.<rant> Yes, more broadly, JavaScript in the hands of most Web developers is a loaded gun in the hands of children.Such infinite loops and memory leaks are Excedrin headache #994,298,193,440. I’m not pissed. I’ve been pissed. Now I’m way beyond pissed.There’s no excuse for such nonsense: E.g., for my Web pages I’ve written no JavaScript at all although ASP.NET has written a little for me.Getting much JavaScript correct is difficult; Web site developers should be very careful with JavaScript and otherwise just not use it.Actually, can do quite well with just HTML and CSS and some minimal JavaScript, well debugged, provided by, say, ASP.NET.</rant>
I confused the headline with BitCoin Center, which is a physical place (groundfloor office/trading floor) on Wall Street. While I applaud this initiative (sorely needed), I too question the branding. Perhaps with the $, JB can rebrand. IMO, what needs explaining is the protocol because that is the innovation…the currency itself is worthless without the blockchain/protocol…and many currencies can run on (similar) protocols. Separating the currency (which people can easily dismiss as not very practical and/or usable for illicit activities) from the underlying technology is the first (major) step in the education process. Last, the branding of the tech needs to accentuate its most positive attributes…which directly attacks the worst of its misconceptions…the fact that it runs via a PUBLIC ledger that can be seen & traced by any/all, rather than tunneled thru a chain of private institutions.
How does USV (or any fund really) make these types of transactions? Is the freedom to support groups that less directly create value for the portfolio than the portfolio companies themselves somehow included in an LP agreement?This is a great initiative. Very interested in how the institutional capital can participate.
We do it with the partners’ moneyWe would not use our LP’s capital for something like this
Thanks for the answer and thanks for supporting the cause.
Much needed – good idea.
um. awesome.
I’ve been lucky to invest in a small group of west-coast BTC co’s and they’ll all be happy to get involved.
so will be my try my be business oppotunity nw na add me for/ website face book// https://www.facebook.com/sa…wesite vidio frisintion?//http://www.ignitionmarketin…
BMW to invest in a small group of west-coast BTC co’s and they’ll all be happy to get involved.
I was working as a cook when I read Kitchen Confidential. It was an engrossing read and I have loved Bourdain ever since, including both of his shows. If I were to stop what I’m doing and take on another life/career, I would follow his footsteps.
girl raffi
I’ve been lucky to invest in a small group of west-coast BTC co’s and they’ll all be happy to get involved.
shah h
Thanks for sharing this Post.
Thanks for sharing this Post.