--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "gittip-discuss" group.
To post to this group, send email to gittip-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to gittip-discus...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/gittip-discuss/-/Rf5_f1PwHxYJ.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
It's very cool to see VCs interested in platforms like GitTip!
We talk about what an open source venture capitalist would look like. We have no idea, but we talk about it.
But they are new types of entities because they are comprised of the contributions of the users. At a minimum then, as "companies" they should be exploring new ways to be, new structures.
I believe we are in a new era of companies that requires some more thought on what and how they do it.
We happen to be investors in twitter, etsy, kickstarter etc - so some of those that are IMO at the center, we are involved with.
thanks for writing Chad, I appreciate you taking the time.the tl;dr anwer to your question is "i'm not sure"the longer, more nuanced answer is that I believe the network architecture of the internet can result in networks of people, decentralized networks, that mimic that architecture. These networks can be fundamentally transformational because they are generally non-hierarchical, more transparent, decentralized and more efficient. They take advantage of the massive decrease in the cost of sharing information (when that cost was large, institutions were required to manage it - ie, corporations, governments, churchs and temples). In this way these networks are empowering.Some of them are classic businesses, some less so.But they are new types of entities because they are comprised of the contributions of the users. At a minimum then, as "companies" they should be exploring new ways to be, new structures.That's point A.Point B is that we know have enough data to support the proposition that open source is the most powerful software product development methodology ever. So how those principles get extended to other areas is interesting. We talk about what an open source venture capitalist would look like. We have no idea, but we talk about it. ANd we think it's important to be talking and thinking about itPoint C: we know now through Kickstarter that the misnamed crowdfunding is a new model for new participants to be involved in the "value chain" of creation. Whereas before the value chain of creation was dominated by more traditional, industrial era, hierarchical organizations. That's interesting.I hope this answers your question, as I said I have no firm thoughts, but I believe we are in a new era of companies that requires some more thought on what and how they do it. We happen to be investors in twitter, etsy, kickstarter etc - so some of those that are IMO at the center, we are involved with.Also a few years ago I was an investor in a failed company called Tipjoy.ThxAW
--
Even the classical VC fund might benefit/profit from investing at least part of it's resources in open source projects or open companies right? Supporting a certain project or cause that is beneficial/useful to multiple traditional companies in a fund portfolio for example? (e.g. the recent investment in meteor, I may be missing a bigger picture/long term plan related to profitability? )
what do you think of the following analogy:
gittip <-> open source venture capital == individual investing <-> venture capital funds?
There is something of a centralized vs distributed to this whole thing. Ultimately we are talking about allocating the flow of funds between people/networks. I guess for gittip and something like open VC to work, ultimately the people on the outside of the receiving end, must be convinced that investing into this network benefits them. The hard part about that I think is getting over the "but they are already doing it for free/minimal price." Of course we don't know how much more innovative, better, and beneficial the product of open source efforts or open companies would be if we increase the amount of resources/money poured into it until someone tries. And then there is still the question of how to best allocate the funds (which i guess is where gittip or a open VC model would come in).
--
Thomas
To post to this group, send email to gittip-discuss@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to gittip-discuss+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to gittip-discuss@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to gittip-discuss+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Even the classical VC fund might benefit/profit from investing at least part of it's resources in open source projects or open companies right?
what do you think of the following analogy:
gittip <-> open source venture capital == individual investing <-> venture capital funds?
Well, it might be the biggest business in the US :-)