The main takeaway from Vitalik's point is how extremely valuable we, the user base, are. For without that base of engaged stakeholders, there can be no 'Exit to Community'. 😁
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
The main takeaway from Vitalik's point is how extremely valuable we, the user base, are. For without that base of engaged stakeholders, there can be no 'Exit to Community'. 😁
Exactly.
That's not the only element, probably even not the most important one either. Historically, time after time, startups have been shuttered during M&A, acquisitions, or just when the founders got bored.
Whether that startup represented a tool in your workflow or a community, the only loser is the user. This goes beyond data portability even (the ability to export your data to another (centralized) tool).
Community can also be thousands of corporate users. If your company invested both time and money in integrating a tool and then the tool goes a different path, or shuts shop, you lose everything. That's the whole point of "exit to community", we need the ability to continue using as we did before. Even when a startup decides to go a different path with a new version.
Perfect example: Basecamp V2 and v3 are massively different, V2 users (all paying clients) were all offered the chance to stay on V2 rather than being automatically upgraded and forced to adapt their flow. In all their brilliant "stubbornness" of great founders, the Basecamp crew (SvN - Signal vs. Noise) do understand their community. The userbase, irrelevantly of whether they are "a community" or paying clients. It goes way beyond "a community".
End of the day it's all about respect. Respect for the user. Those who, indeed, the app a reason to exist.
Giving the userbase a choice as Basecamp did isn't "Exit to Community" as it occurs to me. They gave them a choice to stay or to upgrade. What they didn't give them were the keys to the kingdom.
I think probably the most important important aspect of a community (no matter what makes it up), is engagement. What good does it do to exit to a community that's not engaged? The whole point, as I see it, is "Exit to Community" gives the community the power of self-government. The good ole DAO.
Exit to Community is really just a pipe dream without engagement. If only a small amount of the userbase exercises the power of their vote, we're still nothing more than subjects. That's why I think teaching newer people here on HIVE to get involved is vital to our success. 👍
Yes, but there was no "exit" either with Basecamp. BC is still operational. I highlighted that case because they understand the needs of their users, their community, and don't force their desires upon those users. A vast majority of companies would have forced everyone to upgrade. BC is also privately funded (bootstrapped) and never accepted any VC.
I see I totally failed in my reply.. Community does not need to be engaged. It can be paying clients each in their own silo, who never engage among themselves. You used the correct term: userbase. That's the community. Communities like we on Hive are merely a subset in the nomer "community".
For companies the "exit to community" would be whether to open source the IP (at least the one used to operate the site/app) or to crowdfund the continuation of the platform and recruitment of a new team, an alt-acquisition so to say.
I don't think you failed in your communication. I learned something from your response for sure and I honestly know very few details about Basecamp.
But it seems we are going in circles. Engaged is important because Steemit did exactly what you just proposed. It's only from that engaged part of the community who were larger stakeholders that HIVE exists today.
It's true from a corporate perspective that "Exit to Community" means opening the source code to everyone. But the real success of the "Exit to Community" depends on an engaged Community.
From a corporate outlook, that's a scary proposition. On the other hand it gives HIVE the opportunity to become an online entity unlike anything ever seen before.
In our little world engagement is very important, yes. And engagement also leads to an increased sense of ownership. Here, thanks to stake, ownership is even an integral part of the game.
I totally agree there.
But I think the original concept referred to was in relation to startups (a startup is a product seeking for a replicable revenue model). I'm not sure anymore that blockchains are startups, especially not blockchains like ours (and ETH) which aim to build true alternative economy ecosystems. I know, I know... semantic pedantry lol. Guilty as charged. :D
In the decentralized world we have "Exit to community"... we fork our own continuation chain. Hive is one of the Exit to Community prototypes, albeit one initiated by the community and not a common venture process. Vitalik saw it happen when ETH Classic decided to continue the ETH chain complete with hijacked DAO funds.
!ENGAGE 50
Thanks for that. 😁
"You know what happened to the boy who suddenly got everything he ever wanted?
He lived happily ever after".
~ Willy Wonka & The Chocolate Factory
ENGAGEtokens.