Wed 20 Feb 2019

The Bell courve, a Pyramide Scheme?

Hemdrup Public Seen by 172


i love the general mission. But, this part made me a bit question it.

People can give ETH to a project, which is then converted into a [x] token. Which then people exert energy completing a the mission earns. Then they can convert the token back into back into the donated ETH. That's great!

But! This part I don't get.
That the donate ETH to gets some tokens, which is then used and gamble like a stock market. Then it seems to me, that we are back to the ICO nightmare where people try to increase the fictional value of a token. To scam others to buy it.. #buymybitcoin otherwise it's worthless.

  • With the increase in value, then it also becomes more expensive to donate? / the value of the donation is declining.

Colin porter Wed 20 Feb 2019

I like what your saying Nicolai - Giving to give, for the sake of giving = NOT expecting anything in return.


Josh Fairhead Wed 20 Feb 2019

Actually I think you get it pretty well bro, the answer is yes, as a simple quadratic curve you build a ponzi coin. All is cool there until theres a run on the bank. However if you use Sigmoid curves you get different behaviour as the maximum is capped, or the range is limited. Things can actually go multi-dimensional (multiple curves or surfaces stacked) but ideally it's an integrative process that starts slim (sigmoid).

Re: @jeffemmett (:p) cashing in 10 of 100 tokens to reclaim his investment, thats all fine! The rest of his funds created impact which is what got people fund the cause which raised the value of his coins on the stock market. You might say he's being rewarded for taking the risk and doing work. Other people call it impact investment, which is playing the game for the bigger picture (cause) while still chasing some of those granular fiat tokens to live :)


Marko Prljic Thu 21 Feb 2019

This reminded of things we're building with https://www.tribute.coop
Equity to the community, Grow by sharing, Spread the wealth of networks.


Marko Prljic Thu 21 Feb 2019

I read the article last week and found the combo of bonding curves and curations pretty good. Which curve and how you implement it is another question and depends on the outcome you want to achieve. I'm always all for fairness, incentivising good behaviour and promoting good human values.
There's another idea close to this one, Verified Curation Markets & Graduating Token Bonding Curves https://medium.com/@simondlr/verified-curation-markets-graduating-token-bonding-curves-b3885cd1108


Jeff Emmett Sun 3 Mar 2019

The curation market model - i.e. some form of bonding curve as an economic onramp with some form of TCR as an information ordering mechanism - could very well create the same problems as the ICO boom, if not designed correctly. The difference with this model is that we can engineer bonding curves that set the token value according to the needs of multiple system variables, thus allowing us to more closely align the profit motive with beneficial participant behaviour in the network.

At the moment, we incentivize the investors of the world to maximize profit by finding the next "unicorn start up" and investing early in seeing them succeed. With this model, I hope we can incentivize people to maximize profit by finding the next "big world issue" that needs attention and funding, and investing early to see it resolved through emergent network behaviour.

The need for rigorous Token Engineering is our first priority in designing these systems - more to come on that front soon!


Hemdrup Mon 4 Mar 2019

I buy for 5$, and then convince others to do the same at a higher price of 20$. Selling my initial purchase and making a 15$ profit. 🤑

  1. Why does the donation model need a for profit marketing hunt?
  2. What would go to the actual project/cause?
  3. How does it not become a evil spiral of the next person needing trying to convenience someone else to pay 30$? In other words a pyramid scheme.

BTW. i am not criticizing, hating on the project. Just questioning, and perhaps better answers will be found 💩


Jeff Emmett Mon 4 Mar 2019

Current donation models are broken because they are one directional - every time a cause needs more funds, they need to go convince donors to give and give again. I think we would be better of allowing change makers to focus on making change, rather than spending a good portion of their time seeking funds. So how can we help with that?

When we can create an economy AROUND a cause, and create a well-aligned profit motive to reward beneficial social behaviour (like providing time or resources to resolve the world's biggest problems), we allow emergent market behaviour to create decentralized solutions to actual problems in the world. Markets act as a great aggregator of information, this is one of the stigmergic properties of capitalism as mentioned in my article above.

I completely agree this idea should be viewed with healthy skepticism, as there are many wrong ways this could be built, leading to the exact scenario you point out - but there is promising research being done at the moment that we may be able to use this model for a properly balanced ecosystem promoting social benefit. There will be articles with more information coming soon!


Michael Shea Mon 4 Mar 2019

Isn't this somewhat is being done with Patreon? Though it is focused on the artistic community, it is a way someone can use a subscription model to give an amount continuously over time. (the none begging for funds part.... ;-) )


Jeff Emmett Tue 5 Mar 2019

The problem with Patreon is that the value flow is still largely one directional: from patron to artist. There may be some small exclusive access perks to that artist's work, but the system we are building would allow for contributors to receive concrete value from their contribution in the form of membership tokens issued from the bonding curve. This token gives them fractional ownership, agency, governance, and even potential monetary incentive from whatever cause they are investing in - presumably one they believe in.


Josh Fairhead Tue 5 Mar 2019

Heya Hemdrup, so this would be my take on your questions:
1. Because humanity is currently very focused on the micro. We chase $$ and to hell with the planet or our enjoyment of life as we chase that highly paid position etc. Impact investment is more sustainable (win-win) than zero sum donations.

2. On curves you have integrals that create the "reserve", the difference between the integrals of two curves will create a "pool" of funds that can then be used by the cause to float operations. Or just be taken as profit if the curves are working as an automatic market maker for the purposes of a for profit exchange.
3. To not be an evil spiral the curve must not be a quadratic. The shape determines if its a ponzi or not. A sigmoid has a cap. If this is determined reasonably for the project, they will have enough liquidity to complete their mission and self sustain. If they begin to fail theres an automatic market maker in place for wind down which returns the reserves on request. Sure there can be a bust, but thats inherent in everything.


Josh Fairhead Tue 5 Mar 2019

As Jeff says, yes - but better! They work in two directions and can create a return for impact investors...