BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: bytemaster on April 03, 2014, 06:00:39 am
-
Rebranding Lotto + Bingo in a way that will grow garner positive press ( I hope ).
http://107.170.30.182/charity/
This would be a for-profit charity... it makes money while helping charities.... good for all.
-
" in a way that will grow garner positive press"
Could just as easily garner negative press given a hostile reporter. jealous competitor, or any number of other variables.
-
" in a way that will grow garner positive press"
Could just as easily garner negative press given a hostile reporter. jealous competitor, or any number of other variables.
Positive press relative to a pure lotto or gambling DAC. Think little old ladies at the local church bingo night.
-
" in a way that will grow garner positive press"
Could just as easily garner negative press given a hostile reporter. jealous competitor, or any number of other variables.
Positive press relative to a pure lotto or gambling DAC. Think little old ladies at the local church bingo night.
So is this a new "family" of DACs (ChARITY)\? Something separate from bitsharesLOTTO and other gaming DACs? That I can see great potential for, as fundraising for any number of charitable/social projects. Then any group wanting to raise funds would be making employing the software (kind of like the little old ladies you spoke of renting bingo equipment from a for profit game company).
But the charitable DACs should b e separate from other gaming DACs in my opinion to prevent negative press.
-
" in a way that will grow garner positive press"
Could just as easily garner negative press given a hostile reporter. jealous competitor, or any number of other variables.
Positive press relative to a pure lotto or gambling DAC. Think little old ladies at the local church bingo night.
So is this a new "family" of DACs (ChARITY)\? Something separate from bitsharesLOTTO and other gaming DACs? That I can see great potential for, as fundraising for any number of charitable/social projects. Then any group wanting to raise funds would be making employing the software (kind of like the little old ladies you spoke of renting bingo equipment from a for profit game company).
But the charitable DACs should b e separate from other gaming DACs in my opinion to prevent negative press.
Yes, they may share a lot of code, but their marketing and some of the details will be different. IE: gambling DACs would probably provide higher yields for the gamblers than the charity version. I expect competition to drive the house advantage to near 0.
-
Excellent bytemaster +5%. Even if is 15% is for charity.
-
When you go to NYC present your idea to Stephanie Murphy from Let's Talk Bitcoin who is also part of Fr33, they could point out good charities / causes and help promote the idea.
-
We are trying to spread the gospel - good news with charity!
Positive awareness +5%
-
I saw Bingo is listed in Gaming,
http://107.170.30.182/gaming/
I think Lotto and Bingo belongs to both Charity and Gaming?
-
I saw Bingo is listed in Gaming,
http://107.170.30.182/gaming/
I think Lotto and Bingo belongs to both Charity and Gaming?
The difference between them is in how the jackpot is divided. In the gaming version 0% is allocated to charity.
-
" in a way that will grow garner positive press"
Could just as easily garner negative press given a hostile reporter. jealous competitor, or any number of other variables.
Positive press relative to a pure lotto or gambling DAC. Think little old ladies at the local church bingo night.
I disagree on this one, marketing a for profit charity as just a 'charity' will be received negatively, perhaps doubly so as it's not really a for profit charity either but a normal business that gives a percentage of its revenue to charity.
-
A business that has the potential to grow can give more to charity than a non-profit system....
-
just collect a sizable donation with this tool,then donate it to Bill gates and M's fund,
you'll have a big story to tell. 3i,bill gates in the same line,wow,that's some attention.
Bill and Melinda's is a great foundation, it should be in the list. I would not use charity as a means of attention, but as a means for.. charity. That way it will get the attention it deserves, if not the thought will be corrupted from start and lead to failure.
-
" in a way that will grow garner positive press"
Could just as easily garner negative press given a hostile reporter. jealous competitor, or any number of other variables.
Positive press relative to a pure lotto or gambling DAC. Think little old ladies at the local church bingo night.
I disagree on this one, marketing a for profit charity as just a 'charity' will be received negatively, perhaps doubly so as it's not really a for profit charity either but a normal business that gives a percentage of its revenue to charity.
I agree. I work at a rather large national corporation. We give millions to charity every year, and yes we talk a lot about it, but we don't call ourselves a charity.
-
A business that has the potential to grow can give more to charity than a non-profit system....
I agree however most Americans still believe that stealing peoples money is okay as long as you intend to do something nice with it. Taxes/Welfare.
-
A business that has the potential to grow can give more to charity than a non-profit system....
A for profit charity is a social corporation. These are actually very good for the ecosystem because you cannot solve every problem with the same kind of corp.
Giving to charity in my opinion is a good move not just for marketing but if the right charities are chosen because of the results itself. It's important of course to have a process that people can use to select charities and measure the impact of each charity on a cost/benefit type basis. Such as for every dollar given to x resulted in...
Maybe these DAC entities can save some lives. If DACs save many lives there is no better case to be made for why they should exist. Additionally there will be research concerns and a good charity could be to fund research which can help the entire industry or to bring about cheaper energy which would benefit all industries.
-
A business that has the potential to grow can give more to charity than a non-profit system....
I agree however most Americans still believe that stealing peoples money is okay as long as you intend to do something nice with it. Taxes/Welfare.
Here is a chance to both prove that thinking wrong and do a better job at welfare than the old model.
It's important not to waste time debating the politics of people who believe in the old model. Prove the old model obsolete by showing that for profit charities work better.
There are a lot of areas where sustainable funding is needed.
-
Bts Vegas deserves a spot on the gaming list
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
What about requiring a specific percentage to give to a charity to allow calling it charity and not gambling?
-
What about requiring a specific percentage to give to a charity to allow calling it charity and not gambling?
In theory every DAC could have a charity component that comes at the expense of profitability. While the purist in me knows that charity ultimately backfires by supporting dependence... it cannot be denied that it would provide a powerful marketing advantage and even some political cover.
-
What about requiring a specific percentage to give to a charity to allow calling it charity and not gambling?
In theory every DAC could have a charity component that comes at the expense of profitability. While the purist in me knows that charity ultimately backfires by supporting dependence... it cannot be denied that it would provide a powerful marketing advantage and even some political cover.
But is there a certain percentage that has to be given to a charity to list the DAC in the charity category? Or is "charity" just an attribute that can be part of every DAC at free will of the DAC developer or if the DAC developer wants so at free will of the user who can define the charity percentage as he wants...
-
What about requiring a specific percentage to give to a charity to allow calling it charity and not gambling?
In theory every DAC could have a charity component that comes at the expense of profitability. While the purist in me knows that charity ultimately backfires by supporting dependence... it cannot be denied that it would provide a powerful marketing advantage and even some political cover.
It may not help as much as you think
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Do you have any thoughts on the revenue distribution of the charity lottery?
Existing lotteries on my side of the world, don't market themselves as charities and they give circa 28% of total revenues to 'good causes' which the msm/politicians will claim is mostly charitable & they take 0.5% of total revenues as profit.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4EssbBjDgqc/UAXCdTz2WWI/AAAAAAAAA_Y/nW__8m45054/s1600/euromillions-winners.png)
I think if we give less to charity and much more to shareholders than a traditional lottery, while at the same time marketing ourselves as more of a charity than a lottery, it might be a hard sell.
-
Do you have any thoughts on the revenue distribution of the charity lottery?
Existing lotteries on my side of the world, don't market themselves as charities and they give circa 28% of total revenues to 'good causes' which the msm/politicians will claim is mostly charitable & they take 0.5% of total revenues as profit.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4EssbBjDgqc/UAXCdTz2WWI/AAAAAAAAA_Y/nW__8m45054/s1600/euromillions-winners.png)
I think if we give less to charity and much more to shareholders than a traditional lottery, while at the same time marketing ourselves as more of a charity than a lottery, it might be a hard sell.
Well, a charity DAC lottery could give 50% to good works, 49.5% to winners, and give the remaining 0.5% to shareholdsers.
-
Do you have any thoughts on the revenue distribution of the charity lottery?
Existing lotteries on my side of the world, don't market themselves as charities and they give circa 28% of total revenues to 'good causes' which the msm/politicians will claim is mostly charitable & they take 0.5% of total revenues as profit.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4EssbBjDgqc/UAXCdTz2WWI/AAAAAAAAA_Y/nW__8m45054/s1600/euromillions-winners.png)
I think if we give less to charity and much more to shareholders than a traditional lottery, while at the same time marketing ourselves as more of a charity than a lottery, it might be a hard sell.
Well, a charity DAC lottery could give 50% to good works, 49.5% to winners, and give the remaining 0.5% to shareholdsers.
Hmm I would maybe give 30% to charity, maybe 5% to shareholders and 65% to players but I would just call it a normal lottery and advertise the charity element strongly.
Then we can say we give more than regular lotteries to everybody! We give more to charity (and directly to charity not via government which is a big plus), more to players and more to shareholders, all made possible by efficiency savings!
-
Do you have any thoughts on the revenue distribution of the charity lottery?
Existing lotteries on my side of the world, don't market themselves as charities and they give circa 28% of total revenues to 'good causes' which the msm/politicians will claim is mostly charitable & they take 0.5% of total revenues as profit.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4EssbBjDgqc/UAXCdTz2WWI/AAAAAAAAA_Y/nW__8m45054/s1600/euromillions-winners.png)
I think if we give less to charity and much more to shareholders than a traditional lottery, while at the same time marketing ourselves as more of a charity than a lottery, it might be a hard sell.
Well, a charity DAC lottery could give 50% to good works, 49.5% to winners, and give the remaining 0.5% to shareholdsers.
Hmm I would maybe give 30% to charity, maybe 5% to shareholders and 65% to players but I would just call it a normal lottery and advertise the charity element strongly.
Then we can say we give more than regular lotteries to everybody! We give more to charity (and directly to charity not via government which is a big plus), more to players and more to shareholders, all made possible by efficiency savings!
If you give 5% to shareholders you will probably be forked and outcompeted (Think about how many millions the LOTTOS of the world are taking in on ticket sales if just the prizes can be multiple millions or even hundreds of millions of dollars in some cases. 0.5% of that for shareholders could be VERY lucrative)
-
The Frictionless lottery! :D
C'mon guys it's genius right?
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3881.msg50532#msg50532
-
Do you have any thoughts on the revenue distribution of the charity lottery?
Existing lotteries on my side of the world, don't market themselves as charities and they give circa 28% of total revenues to 'good causes' which the msm/politicians will claim is mostly charitable & they take 0.5% of total revenues as profit.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4EssbBjDgqc/UAXCdTz2WWI/AAAAAAAAA_Y/nW__8m45054/s1600/euromillions-winners.png)
I think if we give less to charity and much more to shareholders than a traditional lottery, while at the same time marketing ourselves as more of a charity than a lottery, it might be a hard sell.
Well, a charity DAC lottery could give 50% to good works, 49.5% to winners, and give the remaining 0.5% to shareholdsers.
Hmm I would maybe give 30% to charity, maybe 5% to shareholders and 65% to players but I would just call it a normal lottery and advertise the charity element strongly.
Then we can say we give more than regular lotteries to everybody! We give more to charity (and directly to charity not via government which is a big plus), more to players and more to shareholders, all made possible by efficiency savings!
If you give 5% to shareholders you will probably be forked and outcompeted (Think about how many millions the LOTTOS of the world are taking in on ticket sales if just the prizes can be multiple millions or even hundreds of millions of dollars in some cases. 0.5% of that for shareholders could be VERY lucrative)
What excites me is that all of these ideas will be tried in every conceivable permutation! The fittest will survive.
And we now have a way to invest in the industry, and hence all of the fittest, without needing to know which they are in advance!
-
Rebranding Lotto + Bingo in a way that will grow garner positive press ( I hope ).
http://107.170.30.182/charity/
This would be a for-profit charity... it makes money while helping charities.... good for all.
Why rebranding and not use all aspects?
Lotto
Bingo
Charity Lotto
Charity Bingo
Random Charity
Choose your Charity
etc.
I said that because I thing that many would prefere one particular aspect...
As an example I think many would not prefere Charity insteed of pure Lotto because in the beginning I would guess they dont trust 100% how the money will distrubuted among charity organizations and they don't trust charity orgs itself like in past because they have the feeling that money don't ends up to the poorest in the world beacause of corrupted operators*... So I think that would work better later when DACs have won Trust (because of using lotto,bingo DACs ). The first motivation of using DACs is profit and greed, like it or not.
* http://www.disasternews.net/news/article.php?articleid=2944
-
Those buying tickets select the charity, not the DAC operators. DAC operators only approve potential charities, but the allocation is in the hands of the players.
-
While the purist in me knows that charity ultimately backfires by supporting dependence... it cannot be denied that it would provide a powerful marketing advantage and even some political cover.
If one is donating to consumption goods and services, yes. However, one could donate to capital projects, like an incubator that supports budding entrepreneurs in economically deprived areas, that do not necessarily fuel the cycle of dependence.
-
While the purist in me knows that charity ultimately backfires by supporting dependence... it cannot be denied that it would provide a powerful marketing advantage and even some political cover.
If one is donating to consumption goods and services, yes. However, one could donate to capital projects, like an incubator that supports budding entrepreneurs in economically deprived areas, that do not necessarily fuel the cycle of dependence.
This should be done at a profit least you support a loss making activity. Angel investors still expect profit.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
-
Hmm I would maybe give 30% to charity, maybe 5% to shareholders and 65% to players but I would just call it a normal lottery and advertise the charity element strongly.
Then we can say we give more than regular lotteries to everybody! We give more to charity (and directly to charity not via government which is a big plus), more to players and more to shareholders, all made possible by efficiency savings!
+5% this.
I would add that use of the phrase "political cover (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3983.msg50488#msg50488)" in this context could be interpreted as cynicism.
-
When you go to NYC present your idea to Stephanie Murphy from Let's Talk Bitcoin who is also part of Fr33, they could point out good charities / causes and help promote the idea.
Making sure to help already established crypto and internet freedom related charities would make the word bitShares ring as benevolent as it is profitable...which makes it a pretty good idea in my book