RE: Four Weeks into the Crypto Experiment: Student Reflections & Suggestions
“It seems like [making grants to] established institutions will be at best a non-ideal compromise. They might take our money, but our grant won't change the way they do business.”
^ A great point! The way in which your class decides to approach institutions with crowdfunded crypto is super important. By that I mean, writing a check to a non-profit (the way it's been done) won't change a thing. You've got to change the process of applying and the requirements thereafter. One baseline example could be requiring an institution to create a Steem account in order to receive a grant. Another requirement could be a proposal to use steem and their newfound stake. What if your applicants were required to implement a 1 year program (or blog) on Steem to showcase their work?
“Even if we transition to a cultural sector run on cryptocurrency, we will still need to contend with an increasingly money-driven model that breeds monopolies…”
^ Crypto monopolies exist right now, that's true. But it's also changing rapidly. The idea of a Steem monopoly isn't the same as a 20th century grant giver monopoly. Remember that Steem is a blockchain where you can delegate influence to others (giving them the ability to earn and upvote more effectively). There's also beneficiary rewards and features that you can use to empower grass root projects. This isn't a monopoly in the traditional sense. It's far more dynamic and impactful (when used correctly).
“…one of my fears is that we will reach the end of this project only for the crypto-market to crash, leaving us with nothing to offer.”
^ This could absolutely happen! But that kind of gamble and uncertainty exists right now within the grant world. You could spend an entire semester writing a grant application... and if it's not selected to receive funding, you receive nothing. At least with this incremental model you have an opportunity to earn and accumulate during the process. This is a more sustainable model for many reasons. It promotes audience building, information sharing, and of course equity of an ecosystem.
We talked in class yesterday about what our criteria for funding ought to be. This suggestion is very interesting in how it required the recipient to take a big, crypto-leap! (But how else are we going to build change into both process and product?)
I wonder what students (or others) think about making this a requirement for recipients?
@voronoi i am quite impressed with the depth of thought in your responses.... i work for an international NGO based in Watertown, and for the past 50 years we have relied on the USG for core funds to implement our work globally....the landscape is changing especially with increasing donor fatigue and budget cuts, the onus is on us as an organization to rethink how we source for funds for the impactful work we do globally....i am part of a team commissioned to explore new opportunities and i have been inspired by the work of @phillyhistory, @sndbox and some other notable steemians..... i will appreciate if you can pitch in with some ideas for how to get started and we can continue the discussions via my official email [email protected] will appreciate any help or info that u can provide....Thanks