Thanks mate, I agree they seem likely to deploy funding through a VC and likely this is to retain an "arms length" from the direct funding of projects on EOS to ensure insulation from legal risk (around the ICO).
I also think this is gives them a few distinct advantages over deploying directly:
- Extra vetting of ideas / projects and teams with the VC being second line of defence
- Having multiple funding partners means projects are answerable to multiple people / groups so less likely to allow themselves to "drop the ball"
- I think Block.One will likely be the ones to vet the ideas initially, send them to VC's for deeper feasibility study, then if pass, back to Block.One for final vetting of the Business & Functional Requirements for fit with eos.io. If passed then they would be considered "endorsed" by block.one and the VC's would then deploy funding, mentorship and oversight.
Block.One have a massive task ahead of them and they'll need help. VC's are toast if they don't get back in this game. It's a win win if they can get the process (and roles / responsibilities) right.
4 VCs already working with innovators. Brings that innovation onto EOS
Downsides for developers and new projects is barriers to entry and VC equity stake.
My thought is that adopting the language of ICO is a mistake for new projects which are trying to kickstart their inventions.
The precedent being set by everipedia is good under certain circumstances but dosen't necassarily apply to all projects looking to build on EOS.
There are also other benefits and disadvantages outside of funding to adopting an airdrop distribution model but for EOS token holders the everipedia announcement is good and if others follow then great more the merrier. 😆😅😃😆😅😃
yep, ther'll still be plenty of projects choosing the ICO route however I can see the high quality ones choosing the VC route to ensure a fast track, minimal distractions and Block.One global contacts to get the maximum traction in order to beat out the competish.