Start-up lift
This post is not about the popular format elevator pitch (elevator test in Russian), but rather continues the line of (my hypothetical) products with the prefix "elevator". On StartupPoint, I once created a topic about the irrationality of a situation when the main site for high-quality discussions of Internet startups is “real”. Although there are actually Internet services for Internet startups, the same StartupPoint , StartupIndex , b-generator and others, but I do not know of such services where the proposed projects would receive an expert assessment, as it happens in real events. In the latter, there is a preliminary selection and observance of the conditions for submission of projects, and on the Internet everyone can get a response to their ideas, even at their most raw stages and expressed in any form. Accordingly, the quality of this response is not guaranteed. Nevertheless, such a format has its justification - indeed, it is really impossible to demand high-quality expert analysis for each raw idea and under-project. Moreover, most beginners make the same mistakes and need not expert advice, but rather a standard educational program. But in general, the current situation captures two extremes, moreover, lying in two different spaces - the virtual and the real world.
It is easy to correct the last, because nothing prevents to implement the entire cycle in the virtual - pre-selection, presentation and peer review. To do this, just need to create an appropriate resource.
It is more difficult to find a middle ground between Internet democracy and the “manual” selection of both projects and experts in real life. My solution is a specific rating system in which the evaluation of materials is related to the evaluation of the appraisers themselves. The idea resembles prediction markets , where those users who more accurately predict any proposed events get into the top as appraisers. Here I propose to limit the scope of the events assessed solely to start-ups or ideas of start-ups. The “weight” of the appraiser’s voice will grow if he has added to the projects that subsequently really “fired” or somehow became successful. Accordingly, the weight of voters in the minus will decrease. Thus, two clusters of appraisers will be gradually formed - effective and inefficient and the total influence of the former will increase and the latter will decrease. Then your material can go to the top, even if they give him a lot of inefficiencies, because their total voice will not outweigh, say, a couple of effective votes.
')
Such a system in itself stimulates the responsibility of users when voting, but I have long wanted to apply a cool monetization system, which Peter Sunde , one of the founders of The Pirat Bay, has already applied . The point is to combine rating with money. The real Muscovites do it)) It seems to me that the newfangled prediction markets resemble good old bookmakers , so there’s nothing really new under the moon.
If anyone is interested, let's build such a project together? In other words: looking for a programmer. One condition. In fact, my goal is to promote the technology of making projects, described in my previous post . Therefore, I would like to make a project on it. This is a strong wish, but still not a matter of principle.
It would seem that once the idea is expressed openly, you can do without the author. But first, the famous thing is to make the project worse without the author. And secondly, there are problems and pitfalls in all this. For example, a similar system (even without money) can be used to evaluate posts on Habré. But if you make the time between “prediction” and “realization” too small, then the good will not work - the system will produce “bare kings” and inflated values. Because the one who was strongly mistaken once, will gain a high rating and the prediction will be fulfilled instantly. Further benefits of this participant will be beneficial already completely regardless of the real value of his products. True, this is rather an illustrative example, since this is less true for startups and their ideas - the time between the idea and the successful implementation of the project is usually quite long. What is more relevant here is the concrete implementation of the weights, i.e. roughly speaking, the specific values ​​of the coefficients in the formulas that will give more weight to the voices of some participants and less to the voices of others. Regarding this, I have a curious idea in stock. Which, however, may then still be voiced in a different context.
Lightly combed version of the same on StartupPoint.
It is easy to correct the last, because nothing prevents to implement the entire cycle in the virtual - pre-selection, presentation and peer review. To do this, just need to create an appropriate resource.
It is more difficult to find a middle ground between Internet democracy and the “manual” selection of both projects and experts in real life. My solution is a specific rating system in which the evaluation of materials is related to the evaluation of the appraisers themselves. The idea resembles prediction markets , where those users who more accurately predict any proposed events get into the top as appraisers. Here I propose to limit the scope of the events assessed solely to start-ups or ideas of start-ups. The “weight” of the appraiser’s voice will grow if he has added to the projects that subsequently really “fired” or somehow became successful. Accordingly, the weight of voters in the minus will decrease. Thus, two clusters of appraisers will be gradually formed - effective and inefficient and the total influence of the former will increase and the latter will decrease. Then your material can go to the top, even if they give him a lot of inefficiencies, because their total voice will not outweigh, say, a couple of effective votes.
')
Such a system in itself stimulates the responsibility of users when voting, but I have long wanted to apply a cool monetization system, which Peter Sunde , one of the founders of The Pirat Bay, has already applied . The point is to combine rating with money. The real Muscovites do it)) It seems to me that the newfangled prediction markets resemble good old bookmakers , so there’s nothing really new under the moon.
If anyone is interested, let's build such a project together? In other words: looking for a programmer. One condition. In fact, my goal is to promote the technology of making projects, described in my previous post . Therefore, I would like to make a project on it. This is a strong wish, but still not a matter of principle.
It would seem that once the idea is expressed openly, you can do without the author. But first, the famous thing is to make the project worse without the author. And secondly, there are problems and pitfalls in all this. For example, a similar system (even without money) can be used to evaluate posts on Habré. But if you make the time between “prediction” and “realization” too small, then the good will not work - the system will produce “bare kings” and inflated values. Because the one who was strongly mistaken once, will gain a high rating and the prediction will be fulfilled instantly. Further benefits of this participant will be beneficial already completely regardless of the real value of his products. True, this is rather an illustrative example, since this is less true for startups and their ideas - the time between the idea and the successful implementation of the project is usually quite long. What is more relevant here is the concrete implementation of the weights, i.e. roughly speaking, the specific values ​​of the coefficients in the formulas that will give more weight to the voices of some participants and less to the voices of others. Regarding this, I have a curious idea in stock. Which, however, may then still be voiced in a different context.
Lightly combed version of the same on StartupPoint.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/95299/
All Articles