Startup Lift

    This post is not about the common elevator pitch format (elevator test in Russian), but rather continues the line of (my hypothetical) products with the prefix “elevator”. On the StartupPoint website, I once created a topic about the irrationality of a situation where the main place for high-quality discussions of Internet startups is “real”. Although there are actually Internet services for Internet startups, the same StartupPoint , StartupIndex , b-generatorand others, but I don’t know such services where the proposed projects would be guaranteed to receive an expert assessment, as is the case in real events. In the latter, there is a preliminary selection and compliance with the conditions for the submission of projects, and on the Internet everyone can get a response to their ideas, even at their rawest stage and expressed in any form. Accordingly, the quality of this response is not guaranteed. Nevertheless, this format has its own justification - after all, it is indeed impossible to demand a high-quality expert analysis for each raw idea and under-design. Moreover, most beginners make the same mistakes and do not need expert advice, but rather a standard educational program. But in general, the current situation captures two extremes, moreover, lying in two different spaces - virtual and real.

    Correct the latter, I think, is not difficult, because nothing prevents to realize the entire cycle in the virtual - preliminary selection, presentation and expert assessment. To do this, you just need to create the 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 evaluators themselves. The idea resembles prediction markets., where those users who more accurately predict any proposed events get to the top as appraisers. Here, I propose to limit the scope of the evaluated events solely to startups or startup ideas. The “weight” of the evaluator’s vote will grow if he added on projects that really “shot” in the future or somehow became successful. Accordingly, the weight of those who vote in the negative will decrease. Thus, two clusters of appraisers are gradually formed - effective and ineffective, and the total influence of the former will increase, while the latter will decrease. Then your material can reach the top, even if there are many inefficient drawbacks to it, since their total vote will not outweigh, say, a couple of effective votes.

    Such a system in itself stimulates the responsibility of users in voting, but I have long wanted to apply a cool monetization system somewhere, an analogue of which Peter Sunde , one of the founders of The Pirat Bay, has already applied . The point is to combine rating with money. These muschschiny do it)) It seems to me that the new-fangled prediction markets resemble the good old bookmakers , so there is nothing particularly new under the moonlight.

    If anyone is interested - let's bungle such a project together? In other words: I am looking for a programmer. One condition. In fact, my goal is to promote the technology for creating projects described in my previous post. Therefore, I would like to make a project on it. This is a strong wish, but still not fundamental.

    It would seem that since the idea was expressed openly, you can do without the author. But firstly, it’s a well-known thing - to make a project worse without an author. And secondly, in all this there are problems and pitfalls. Suppose 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, you won’t get good - the system will produce “naked kings” and inflated values. Because the one who is strongly splashed once, thereby gaining a high rating and the prediction will come true instantly. Further, the advantage of this participant will be beneficial already completely regardless of the real value of its products. True, this is rather an illustrative example, since this applies less to startups and their ideas - the time between an idea and a successful project is usually quite long. What is more relevant here is the specific implementation of the "weights", i.e. roughly speaking, the specific values ​​of the coefficients in the formulas, which will give more weight to the votes of some participants and less to the votes of others. I have a curious idea regarding this. Which, however, then maybe all the same I will sound in a different context.

    A lightly combed version of the same on StartupPoint.

    Also popular now: