0
1

[–] ClassicLiberaltarian 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

What if the community itself desires monetization? What if someone with questionable motivation buys a controlling stake in Voat and basically does as they wish?

Its a well intentioned idea but I think it could potentially end very badly.

0
1

[–] hexydes [S] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

What is the more likely scenario: the entire community is able to rally around a shady monetization infrastructure, or a sleazy VC firm wants to pump and dump a startup?

As far as someone with questionable motivation buying a controlling stake, what's to say that won't happen with a VC firm? The Voat crew controls how much public stock is offered anyway, so in either scenario they just put out less than 50% of the company and can veto anything; at least with a crowd-sourced equity plan, MORE people that belong to the community will have a say.

0
0

[–] inconspicuous ago 

In the short-term at least, Voat really needs non-Bitcoin donations. I know they had a problem with PayPal in the past, but I don't want to have to find some shady service that lets me turn my cash into Bitcoins quickly. I basically want to donate safely and with little effort.

The crowdfunded VC model does fall apart when people with money can buy a larger or controlling stake. It's an interesting idea though.

0
1

[–] hexydes [S] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

That's what's happening with VC money. The difference is that at least SOME of the company will be owned by the community. It would be hard for a single person to come in and start buying it all up without the community noticing too (as long as everything was somewhat transparent). I think there are also limitations to how much stock can be offered in a given year with the JOBS act. Also, the Voat team can choose how much stock to offer, so they can just keep a controlling interest in the company and use the crowd-sourced equity part as a guiding point to morality of the service.