Does more money solve problems for Crypto?

Some of my thoughts, what are yours?..

Would Cardano be able to deliver sooner if they had more funds? Or does excess cash cause poorly managed companies to crash and burn? I’m looking at this article discussing how much telegram will probably make when they launch their ico:

And I’m wondering if telegram (or maybe stellar?) will have the money and man power to provide a large suite of services or an all-in-one crypto platform before Cardano can really get started.

It seems to me that almost every ICO is bringing in more cash then the companies know what to do with…
(yet block chain technology is still in it’s infancy and practically useless)
Should we be betting on the future success of these companies based on how much fiat they can bring in, or is it still more about solving really difficult technical problems that no one on earth has figured out yet?

To put it another way, do you expect the real game changing innovation and useful products to be developed by small teams, or the big players with the most cash?

Let me use my personal experience to reply to this.
I have built many homes and in the past I was really good at it, I have worked with some really good guy’s in the field and I learned the best lesson’s when I was able to observe what was happening around me after I spent some time in my craft, I would occasionally inspect the competitions product - some construction crews were top notch and could put my work to shame (which pushed me to meet the standard) I soon learned that when building custom products that if too many people were involved than the project would go over budget not meet deadline and the end product was not the best quality, if the Cardano project stepped outside of the years of planning they have in place and ramped up personell and spent more to meet the goals on the road map just to deliver a functioning piece of the network/platform promised than you would see the same problems in the platform that you can find in most new houses - a little bit of discoloration in the concrete leading up to the door, entrance has just a little too much light or not enough, countertops have a little uneven separation from the wall, paint catches your eye now and then with a shadow in a weird place, the floor seems to be out of square somehow, closet shelving looks like you will have to put your imagination to work to store your things in it, drains in the basement are in the middle of the hallway, your son that play’s basketball cannot stand up in the back of the theater room, the garage door makes a catching noise when it closes, layout is not what you were expecting when comparing to the pics online… I could bring in plenty more issue’s of houses just being thrown together that pushed me out of the craft but the little things are what you end up spending alot of money on (and I made money on fixing in the past) , my point is this: Cardano has been planning from the start, they have planned to expand their team to produce a product that will be next to none, using the peer review process throughout the development process it might not end up being the most popular product - but it will be the most professionally crafted product that is possible with the most qualified professionals they are able to attract to the team that will build a product that will be reviewed by the leaders in their field that practice the craft- educate the principles of the craft - and evaluate the progress of the craft (and possibly more, I do not know, it is not my craft) that will critique, ridicule, or applause the accomplishments that they engineer under the leadership of the Cardano team, personally I do not think you can throw more money at something and hope for something bigger and better, I would bet that every team member that is working on the Cardano project is paid well enough to ensure they are able to focus on the job they have, and when finished with the development of Cardano they will have achieved a huge step in their field and will be recognized for their contribution to such a project and the earnings they make while there will be trivial when compared to contributing to such an accomplishment in this time.

1 Like

The short answer is, no, because Charles has said several times that the team already has more than enough financial resources. In fact, IOHK often donates and invests in numerous other nonprofits, schools, and projects; so, they’re not suffering from a cash deficit.

The slightly longer answer: Throwing money at projects and companies often degrades their creativity and execution. Adversity is the mother of innovation. Necessity is the mother of invention. When individuals, companies, and projects are flush with cash, they often get lazy and their imagination atrophies. The same is true of the muscles in our bodies: They become weak and atrophied when they’re not forced to overcome significant resistance.

I also wrote in another post yesterday about the optimal size of teams. Typically, the best development teams for each component of a project are like Navy Seal teams, with 5-8 members per unit. Anymore than that and the team and code start to become unwieldy to manage. When you look at IOHK’s entire team relative to the number of projects they have under development, it appears that they understand this principle and have allocated their dev resources similarly to what I’ve described.


Thanks for those replies, you put my mind at ease… I agree with both points, and also believe Cardano and Deadalus will be worth the wait…
I just keep seeing how fast the blockchain space is moving, and how many projects are taking off while Cardano continues their slow and steady march. Oh well, I knew what I was signing up for, so I’ll be patient.

My gut feeling would be that the results would be best for an organisation that has (not in specific order):

  • Clear vision and values understood and shared by all teams involved
  • Coordination that has vision and a ‘hands-off’ approach (see below); coordination is able to inspire and build sense of pride in teams
  • Small teams (5-8? as mentioned by ADAlove) with sufficient funding to attract the best in the field
  • Very clear definition of what teams are expected to address/ solve
  • Close communication ties
  • Team that have the liberty to solve the issues ‘their way’, and have the liberty and resources to tinker and learn by failing fast. Teams are solution- and results-oriented.
  • Flexibility, adaptability and agile in approach, quick and ruthless in eliminating what doesn’t work, quick and open to embrace new insights, lessons and opportunities
  • Timelines are not fixed, but advancement is actively monitored.
  • Cognitive diversity built in all teams
  • Approach based on common sense; results-based and not rules-based. Teams that are able to Keep It Simple and direct
  • Minimal politics; transparency and honesty are core values in the organisation
  • Able to have the right mix of technical quality, accessibility, solving real-world problems, ability to clearly communicate internally and externally, ability to remain visible and appear relevant in the stream of information out ‘in the wild’
  • Ability to connect to the outside system

I’m surely missing a few here, but this would probably put in place the foundation for a strong contender. Too much resources is not good, but resources have to be adapted to what needs to be achieved, and how to get the best results (and there is a price-tag to that)…

Some of these issues are open for external stakeholders to see, others linked to ‘culture’ in the organisation are not…

1 Like