Quote from: dancingpenguins on May 04, 2016, 03:16:04 am

Quote from: particlewave on May 03, 2016, 08:51:15 pm

Quote from: dancingpenguins on May 03, 2016, 03:49:22 am

Quote from: particlewave on May 03, 2016, 01:18:17 am

Quote from: dancingpenguins on May 01, 2016, 07:31:26 pm

I'll post the same questions here, that were not responded to at bitcointalk:

This project seems like an overly complicated take on micropayments to which the new currency, Sollars, adds very little (do you have any thoughts on this?).

Good answers to a few questions would help ameliorate my skepticism:

1) You seem to have no experience with any kind of tech startup or blockchain project. Do you bring anything other than marketing to this project?

2) Why should anyone give you/your organization 10-20% of the earnings from their films when this whole payment process could easily be entirely decentralized? What is that fee for and why should it not go to the content creators? In short, why do content creators need you at all?
 
3) You seem to be using terms "DAC" and "blockchain" as equivalents, which is not how I understand them. Could you clarify what you mean by DAC and how a DAC fits into your long term plan?
 
4) Your analogy to Uber is problematic. Anyone with a car can be a taxi driver via Uber. Not just anyone can create high quality media content. Making blockbuster TV shows and films takes massive teams of people and large upfront investments. It seems to me that the success of your project depends crucially on convincing wealthy producers that your system will make them more money than the system already in place. How will you do this?

My two cents on 4).
Hip Hop,  an underground urban movement, develop in the South Bronx in New York City in the 1970's, became globally widespread in the late 1980s and by the 2000s became the most listened-to musical genre in the world (according to Spotify). It has now diversified into a global juggernaut with multi-million dollar tentacles into other music genres, the fashion industry, movies, gaming, advertising, etc.  Who would have ever believed it all started in the 'hood from humble ultra-low budget verbose expressions of street life?

The Hollywood movie and television industries' control and rigidity is just so outdated.  Unless you're totally into cookie cutter movies, fake reality shows, computer scripted news and sportscasts, etc.

I think you are oversimplifying the spread of hip hop in your analogy. I would argue that hip hop became popular in large part because it tapped into a kind of authenticity (the real world, on real streets, real life etc) that wasn't present in the music industry at the time. It continues to thrive on the sale of authenticity (whether real or imagined at this point is arguable).

However, that kind of "realness" is currently alive and well in the DIY film world and has been successfully coopted by Hollywood and TV producers long ago. I disagree that Hollywood / big TV producers only make crap. Sure, there's a lot of crap, a majority of crap even, but there are also some genuinely great films and shows that carry the industry. My point is that a show like The Wire (as an example of coopted "realness" that actually ends up being great - in the same way that a rapper like Kendrick Lamar can be coopted but also great) can't happen on a low budget. So, somewhere people with millions of dollars need to step in and say that they want to sell their product differently. The question is, why would they? I haven't seen a good explanation of how that is supposed to happen through Solomon's plan.

Quote from: particlewave on May 03, 2016, 01:18:17 am

More power to grain cutters like Sollywood.  Amateur productions riding the blockchain wave will lead the revolution.

It's one thing to say, "yeah, disrupt Hollywood!" and another to actually be able to do it. As far as I can tell, Solomon doesn't know anything about blockchain tech and he has explicitly said that a blockchain is not what supports this project - it is just an add-on to come later (??). To me that suggests that he is indeed trying to "ride the wave" but in name only as a way to extract money from people in this space, without giving back any of the empowering benefits of the blockchain.

It sounds like he's just proposing another centralized hosting platform. . . which adds nothing to the ecosystem and is unlikely to provide a return to his current or prospective supporters.

@dancingpenquins, very inciteful post. Thanks.

The 'New Money Project Intro Hangout' youtube video defines Sollywood T.V. w/ SollarsNSense thusly:
"..is essentially a new online market place for content and content services with its own digital currency built-in [the] pricing."

The video suggests that content creators can adjust (dynamically?) their price to more aggressively create and/or match consumer demand.  Something big-box distributors (Netflix, cable, etc.) are unable or unwilling to do?
It suggests the greatest benefit to new and unknown content creators.  Pricing optimization (w/ low overhead) to attract a much wider viewership.  Throw in digital currency for the billions of 'unbanked' consumers.
I will assume the SollarsNSense service provider will allow users to create and manage their own personal content packages.
One differenitiator appears to be that with STV a first time moviemaker or videographer could create a some novel, short, quirky content (quirky today, mainstream hot tomorrow) and sell to millions with STV w/ SNS pricing management structure(s).
I can imagine a lot of ways in which such a flexible platform can quickly capture and capitalize on new and unique content attractions.
I would like to create a short with twenty different endings played randomly with each viewing.

So the question is, "How do I, as an investor, profit from this 'next level' content distribution/services model?"

Maybe the Kickstarter campaign will shed more light.

I would think that some component of this venture would have to be centralized (think Peertracks hosting server).

I agree with @Vizzini.  This is a mammoth undertaking.  A grand experiment, have you.  Isn't this what the cryptospace is all about?  No matter how well staffed you are the cryptograveyard will still overflow.  Much success to Sollywood.

BTW, great observation on hip hop.  Hip hop also came along at a time when music technology was taking a quantum leap and becoming a lot less expensive.  Sometimes an order of magnitude less expensive ($8K hardware reverbs to software freeverbs, samplers, drum machines, studio on a laptop, etc.).
BTW, I never said "...Hollywood / big TV producers only make crap."  Please don't misquote misunderstand me.

Thanks for the civil and direct response. I'd like to discuss the development of hip hop further but I guess this is not the place.

I'll take up 3 points:

1) Peertracks

Yes, Peertracks is an interesting model that might work for indie music artists/producers. I can also see that this might apply for some niche between Vimeo/Youtube productions and big time Hollywood/TV productions. But there are a lot of issues around Solomon's pitch. First, a blockchain is central to the Peertracks model, not an add-on. As I mentioned earlier, he has explicitly said that a blockchain is not central to this project, making it absolutely nothing like Peertracks. Second, they charge 5% rather than 20% because of their use of the blockchain and this charge can ultimately be reduced to near zero with some further decentralization adjustments. Third, even if he changes his mind on the importance of a blockchain to his project, Solomon cannot develop something like Peertracks himself because he doesn't have the technical know-how (from reading his material, he doesn't even seem able to distinguish the terms "DAC" and "blockchain"). From what I understand of Peertracks, they started out with a team ready to make the product. Solomon already asked for money once (presale) and is now asking for more money (current sale) to get even more money (kickstarter) to get a team to work for him to do this project! Even if you trust his intentions (and I raise doubts over this in part because of the pyramid scheme-like structure here), you have to question his ability to get this done. I believe it is naive to assume that the are blockchain developers lined up out to door to work with him on this and the MUSE developer has already distanced himself from this project.

To take this back to my original question (#4) - do big budget productions need to be a part of this project? (Solomon has suggested they will be) And if so, why will they give up what they have to switch over? It's possible that this project (if it solved all the other problems I've raised) could be a disruptive force to big media. Maybe people start watching a lot of low and mid-budget online content. Maybe because of this some big producers experiment with the new model. Maybe they're successful and then the flood gates open! But that's an awful lot of maybes and frankly, Solomon has not presented any of the whys very convincingly (why will people leave their beloved big budget shows and films and/or why will big budget producers make the switch?) and yet still claims with unreasonable confidence that his project is the next big thing. 

2) "How do I, as an investor, profit from this 'next level' content distribution/services model?"

To me this question is actually a big problem that cryptospace needs to deal with. The great thing about the blockchain and smart contracts is that we can finally get rid of the middleman who takes a profit from mediating the transfer of goods and services. That transfer becomes automated and directly connects consumers to producers. The result is an intense disintermediation that pushes an investment return in the system towards zero. I think (hope?) open source will quickly shift services like Peertracks and Solomon's proposal to near-zero fee transactions. That's why I question the 10-20% fee structure he proposes. At 5%, Peertracks shows us that this is already problematic, and Peertracks will also be pushed towards zero. I believe that we need to come to terms with the fact that there will be no investment returns for many very important projects but that does not mean we should not still be funding them because they have a very good chance of making the world a better place.

3) digital currency for the unbanked

The "unbanked" already have access to many digital currencies.  Do they need another one just to consume media? There are many interesting applications that cryptocurrency might offer to the world's poorest people (I believe this is often overstated by bitcoin/altcoin spokespeople but I guess that's another conversation) but I don't really see this project as one of them.

Your responses are definitely thought provoking.  Thanks again.

I'll take up 4 points:

1)  "The result is an intense disintermediation that pushes an investment return in the system towards zero."

I think you just sent a toxoplasmotic like shock wave through most of the crypto investment world.  Unfortunately, I agree with you on the inevitable outcome.
Not to go too much off topic but diminishing profit-driven investment opportunities pushes us closer to a universal minimum income socioeconomic system.  Not to say it would be a good or bad thing.  Could we be the first wave of a process that undulates between centralized and decentralized control to finally settle in to a quasi-decentralized transaction state?

2)  "I believe that we need to come to terms with the fact that there will be no investment returns for many very important projects but that does not mean we should not still be funding them because they have a very good chance of making the world a better place."

This suggests to me that once the SEC (U.S.A.) finally green lights (not to be confused with the criminal slang meaning) the equity crowdfunding JOBS Act (Title III) provision, crypto-presales, and ICOs may become a thing of the past, replaced with seriously regulated equity crowdfunding.  I don't quite understand the current concept of having a crowdfunding campaign after pre-sale and ICO to attract investors. But then again I am not an investment adviser or well-versed in investment science (pseudo-science?).  Note, I don't believe Solomon is the first to employ this strategy.

3)  "That's why I question the 10-20% fee structure he proposes."

I'm not sure about the viability of the fee structure.  However, thousands of app devs flock to Apple and Google and gleefully surrender 30% off the top.

4)  "The "unbanked" already have access to many digital currencies.  Do they need another one just to consume media?"

Seven hundred plus and counting crypto token makers seem to think so.   I know,  RIP.  Of course you could just color an existing coin or create a contract.  Solcerts has to be careful with obsolescence.

Regarding the Apple/Google comment, I think part of what initially irked me and raised some alarm bells around the project (apart from Solomon implying that I was just another troll/FUDer from the outset over at bitcointalk instead of attempting to deal with critical questions in a professional way) is that in the absolute best case scenario he seems to be selling an slightly more flexible version of iTunes+YouTube, but calling it "blockchain". A platform like this, without a blockchain element, might have some value, though I'm not confident about its potential longevity. However, as I've already said, he seems underqualified to build such a platform, and even if he could, why call it "blockchain" when a blockchain is not actually integral to the platform? It suggests to me that he's either confused about what he is proposing or dishonest - neither particularly good conclusions.

Anyway, since it seems like we agree on a lot of the other things you quoted (and Solomon refuses to respond to me), I guess I'll sign off for now. I'll try to remember to check back in sometime to see if there is a roadmap that makes more "$ense" than what is going on right now.

Quote from: dancingpenguins on May 03, 2016, 03:49:22 am

Quote from: particlewave on May 03, 2016, 01:18:17 am

Quote from: dancingpenguins on May 01, 2016, 07:31:26 pm

I'll post the same questions here, that were not responded to at bitcointalk:

This project seems like an overly complicated take on micropayments to which the new currency, Sollars, adds very little (do you have any thoughts on this?).

Good answers to a few questions would help ameliorate my skepticism:

1) You seem to have no experience with any kind of tech startup or blockchain project. Do you bring anything other than marketing to this project?

2) Why should anyone give you/your organization 10-20% of the earnings from their films when this whole payment process could easily be entirely decentralized? What is that fee for and why should it not go to the content creators? In short, why do content creators need you at all?
 
3) You seem to be using terms "DAC" and "blockchain" as equivalents, which is not how I understand them. Could you clarify what you mean by DAC and how a DAC fits into your long term plan?
 
4) Your analogy to Uber is problematic. Anyone with a car can be a taxi driver via Uber. Not just anyone can create high quality media content. Making blockbuster TV shows and films takes massive teams of people and large upfront investments. It seems to me that the success of your project depends crucially on convincing wealthy producers that your system will make them more money than the system already in place. How will you do this?

My two cents on 4).
Hip Hop,  an underground urban movement, develop in the South Bronx in New York City in the 1970's, became globally widespread in the late 1980s and by the 2000s became the most listened-to musical genre in the world (according to Spotify). It has now diversified into a global juggernaut with multi-million dollar tentacles into other music genres, the fashion industry, movies, gaming, advertising, etc.  Who would have ever believed it all started in the 'hood from humble ultra-low budget verbose expressions of street life?

The Hollywood movie and television industries' control and rigidity is just so outdated.  Unless you're totally into cookie cutter movies, fake reality shows, computer scripted news and sportscasts, etc.

I think you are oversimplifying the spread of hip hop in your analogy. I would argue that hip hop became popular in large part because it tapped into a kind of authenticity (the real world, on real streets, real life etc) that wasn't present in the music industry at the time. It continues to thrive on the sale of authenticity (whether real or imagined at this point is arguable).

However, that kind of "realness" is currently alive and well in the DIY film world and has been successfully coopted by Hollywood and TV producers long ago. I disagree that Hollywood / big TV producers only make crap. Sure, there's a lot of crap, a majority of crap even, but there are also some genuinely great films and shows that carry the industry. My point is that a show like The Wire (as an example of coopted "realness" that actually ends up being great - in the same way that a rapper like Kendrick Lamar can be coopted but also great) can't happen on a low budget. So, somewhere people with millions of dollars need to step in and say that they want to sell their product differently. The question is, why would they? I haven't seen a good explanation of how that is supposed to happen through Solomon's plan.

Quote from: particlewave on May 03, 2016, 01:18:17 am

More power to grain cutters like Sollywood.  Amateur productions riding the blockchain wave will lead the revolution.

It's one thing to say, "yeah, disrupt Hollywood!" and another to actually be able to do it. As far as I can tell, Solomon doesn't know anything about blockchain tech and he has explicitly said that a blockchain is not what supports this project - it is just an add-on to come later (??). To me that suggests that he is indeed trying to "ride the wave" but in name only as a way to extract money from people in this space, without giving back any of the empowering benefits of the blockchain.

It sounds like he's just proposing another centralized hosting platform. . . which adds nothing to the ecosystem and is unlikely to provide a return to his current or prospective supporters.

@dancingpenquins, very inciteful post. Thanks.

The 'New Money Project Intro Hangout' youtube video defines Sollywood T.V. w/ SollarsNSense thusly:
"..is essentially a new online market place for content and content services with its own digital currency built-in [the] pricing."

The video suggests that content creators can adjust (dynamically?) their price to more aggressively create and/or match consumer demand.  Something big-box distributors (Netflix, cable, etc.) are unable or unwilling to do?
It suggests the greatest benefit to new and unknown content creators.  Pricing optimization (w/ low overhead) to attract a much wider viewership.  Throw in digital currency for the billions of 'unbanked' consumers.
I will assume the SollarsNSense service provider will allow users to create and manage their own personal content packages.
One differenitiator appears to be that with STV a first time moviemaker or videographer could create a some novel, short, quirky content (quirky today, mainstream hot tomorrow) and sell to millions with STV w/ SNS pricing management structure(s).
I can imagine a lot of ways in which such a flexible platform can quickly capture and capitalize on new and unique content attractions.
I would like to create a short with twenty different endings played randomly with each viewing.

So the question is, "How do I, as an investor, profit from this 'next level' content distribution/services model?"

Maybe the Kickstarter campaign will shed more light.

I would think that some component of this venture would have to be centralized (think Peertracks hosting server).

I agree with @Vizzini.  This is a mammoth undertaking.  A grand experiment, have you.  Isn't this what the cryptospace is all about?  No matter how well staffed you are the cryptograveyard will still overflow.  Much success to Sollywood.

BTW, great observation on hip hop.  Hip hop also came along at a time when music technology was taking a quantum leap and becoming a lot less expensive.  Sometimes an order of magnitude less expensive ($8K hardware reverbs to software freeverbs, samplers, drum machines, studio on a laptop, etc.).
BTW, I never said "...Hollywood / big TV producers only make crap."  Please don't misquote misunderstand me.

Thanks for the civil and direct response. I'd like to discuss the development of hip hop further but I guess this is not the place.

I'll take up 3 points:

1) Peertracks

Yes, Peertracks is an interesting model that might work for indie music artists/producers. I can also see that this might apply for some niche between Vimeo/Youtube productions and big time Hollywood/TV productions. But there are a lot of issues around Solomon's pitch. First, a blockchain is central to the Peertracks model, not an add-on. As I mentioned earlier, he has explicitly said that a blockchain is not central to this project, making it absolutely nothing like Peertracks. Second, they charge 5% rather than 20% because of their use of the blockchain and this charge can ultimately be reduced to near zero with some further decentralization adjustments. Third, even if he changes his mind on the importance of a blockchain to his project, Solomon cannot develop something like Peertracks himself because he doesn't have the technical know-how (from reading his material, he doesn't even seem able to distinguish the terms "DAC" and "blockchain"). From what I understand of Peertracks, they started out with a team ready to make the product. Solomon already asked for money once (presale) and is now asking for more money (current sale) to get even more money (kickstarter) to get a team to work for him to do this project! Even if you trust his intentions (and I raise doubts over this in part because of the pyramid scheme-like structure here), you have to question his ability to get this done. I believe it is naive to assume that the are blockchain developers lined up out to door to work with him on this and the MUSE developer has already distanced himself from this project.

To take this back to my original question (#4) - do big budget productions need to be a part of this project? (Solomon has suggested they will be) And if so, why will they give up what they have to switch over? It's possible that this project (if it solved all the other problems I've raised) could be a disruptive force to big media. Maybe people start watching a lot of low and mid-budget online content. Maybe because of this some big producers experiment with the new model. Maybe they're successful and then the flood gates open! But that's an awful lot of maybes and frankly, Solomon has not presented any of the whys very convincingly (why will people leave their beloved big budget shows and films and/or why will big budget producers make the switch?) and yet still claims with unreasonable confidence that his project is the next big thing. 

2) "How do I, as an investor, profit from this 'next level' content distribution/services model?"

To me this question is actually a big problem that cryptospace needs to deal with. The great thing about the blockchain and smart contracts is that we can finally get rid of the middleman who takes a profit from mediating the transfer of goods and services. That transfer becomes automated and directly connects consumers to producers. The result is an intense disintermediation that pushes an investment return in the system towards zero. I think (hope?) open source will quickly shift services like Peertracks and Solomon's proposal to near-zero fee transactions. That's why I question the 10-20% fee structure he proposes. At 5%, Peertracks shows us that this is already problematic, and Peertracks will also be pushed towards zero. I believe that we need to come to terms with the fact that there will be no investment returns for many very important projects but that does not mean we should not still be funding them because they have a very good chance of making the world a better place.

3) digital currency for the unbanked

The "unbanked" already have access to many digital currencies.  Do they need another one just to consume media? There are many interesting applications that cryptocurrency might offer to the world's poorest people (I believe this is often overstated by bitcoin/altcoin spokespeople but I guess that's another conversation) but I don't really see this project as one of them.

Just for clarity's sake, the 10-20% comes from this quote:

WHILE getting 80-90% of what comes in for your content. You would make 80-90% of what came in at those prices we would make 10-20%. That is the power of new money technologies. And its a BIG DEAL.

from  the main page: http://newmoney.sollars.com/new-money-explaining-new-money-project/

I'll post the same questions here, that were not responded to at bitcointalk:

This project seems like an overly complicated take on micropayments to which the new currency, Sollars, adds very little (do you have any thoughts on this?).

Good answers to a few questions would help ameliorate my skepticism:

1) You seem to have no experience with any kind of tech startup or blockchain project. Do you bring anything other than marketing to this project?

2) Why should anyone give you/your organization 10-20% of the earnings from their films when this whole payment process could easily be entirely decentralized? What is that fee for and why should it not go to the content creators? In short, why do content creators need you at all?
 
3) You seem to be using terms "DAC" and "blockchain" as equivalents, which is not how I understand them. Could you clarify what you mean by DAC and how a DAC fits into your long term plan?
 
4) Your analogy to Uber is problematic. Anyone with a car can be a taxi driver via Uber. Not just anyone can create high quality media content. Making blockbuster TV shows and films takes massive teams of people and large upfront investments. It seems to me that the success of your project depends crucially on convincing wealthy producers that your system will make them more money than the system already in place. How will you do this?