A blockchain doesn't make much sense in this situation. For a mining patent to be useful it has to be enforceable. There is no inherent characteristic around that chunk of rock that links it to any particular scamgraphic signature, so it relies on a third party observer to say "this X tons of material are from this claim". If you are reliant on that third party authority, then you may as well dispense with the blockchain rigmarole and just use a standard database.
I think the argument can be made that there is business value in being able to prove definitively that a claim was made at a particular point in time without requiring a central authority (which may be difficult to communicate with) be involved in the registration.
Here is a deeper and more thoughtful bit of analysis of the ConsenSys/Planetary acquisition, written by one Giulio Prisco who seems to have a background as a theoretical physicist, and computer scientist. ConsenSys and Planetary Resources: First reactionsby Giulio Prisco, of Chainrift Research
Quote from: edzieba on 11/03/2018 07:51 amA blockchain doesn't make much sense in this situation. For a mining patent to be useful it has to be enforceable. There is no inherent characteristic around that chunk of rock that links it to any particular scamgraphic signature, so it relies on a third party observer to say "this X tons of material are from this claim". If you are reliant on that third party authority, then you may as well dispense with the blockchain rigmarole and just use a standard database. IBM believes that there is value in blockchain for certain kinds of transactions. I am not an official spokesperson for IBM (which is a relief to just about anyone at IBM I am sure) but I have to give my employer some credence. Is this transaction one of those kinds? I think the argument can be made that there is business value in being able to register a claim but not disclose who the claimant is. I think the argument can be made that there is business value in being able to prove definitively that a claim was made at a particular point in time without requiring a central authority (which may be difficult to communicate with) be involved in the registration.Whether these arguments carry the day for you? YMMV. I myself am not convinced of a yes, but not certain the answer is no.
I don’t think that the blockchain company that salvaged Planetary Resources had any interests in mining patents.
PLANETARY RESOURCES/AEROSPACE R&D - ONLINE ONLYCNC Machine Shop, Lab & Office FurnitureStart Date: 11:00 AM | Thursday - May 28End Date: 11:00 AM | Thursday - June 4Preview 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM | Wednesday, June 3LOCATION: 6742 185TH AVE NE., REDMOND, WA 98052
Space Crowdfunding takes off?I saw the headline in my daily email from @SpaceNews_Inc I added the "?"Personally, I think crowdfunding currently is a terrible way to raise money for your space startup, and at best, and it's an option of last resort.🧵 begin(rant) Here's why. First, the space crowdfunding (partial) list via @spacereportr from @SpaceNews_Inc2012 / $106K NanoSatisfi2020 /$1350K @SolstarOFFICIAL2021 / $618K @OACspace2021 / $231K Launchspace Technologies2021 / $129K @aphelionaerosp2021 / $142K @EX0space While it didn't make the list, it appears Planetary Resources still holds the space crowdfunding record, having raised $1,505,276 via Kickstarter for "ARKYD: A Space Telescope for Everyone" in 2013 - a project we later cancelled and refunded to backers.While the Planetary Resources kickstarter didn't raise as much as the recent @ConstitutionDAO, it faced a similar challenge in refunding contributions, with 17,000+ backers, transaction fees, and no simple method to "reverse" transactions. Still were able to refund about ~80%. The reason for the refund was failing to meet a challenge in common with these recent equity crowd-funders: The amount raised was a too-small fraction of funds needed to execute the project. Even by focusing on early milestones, it operates in an environment of high-friction. Upon closing your crowdfunding round, you now have 100s, maybe 1000s of new stakeholders in your company, and most of the paperwork and reporting obligations necessary with "regular" equity financing.Like any investor, your new supporters have high hopes for an ROI. You can still write one newsletter and distribute it to your community, but unlike a community of professional investors, it is less likely you are going to find well-connected, experienced assistance from your crowdfunding community. Normal investors bring value beyond their $. An experienced investor—excited about your company and its offering—can open doors of opportunity for you, give you critical feedback to hone your business approach, and help "credential" your and your business going forward. A community of crowd-funders probably provides NONE of this. If you need to raise another round of funding (and since you're funding a space company, it is VERY LIKELY that you will) you're starting from scratch w.r.t. these should-be assets. It is possible that crowdfunding can help you get needed funds without needing to learn how to play the "investor seed funding" game, and can get your company through a key progress milestone that levels you up for professional investors in the next round. Crowdfunding is also GREAT when it is members of your addressable market and future customers who are helping to bring that same product or service to market. But in a space business, its very unlikely that both (A) your crowdfunders are your customers and (B) the amount of funding you raise will be the amount you need to deploy the product to the marketplace. It's a stop-gap. So you will probably need to raise more money — and what is the likelihood that those prior crowd-investors will "double down" and invest again? What is the likelihood that they will encourage others to join the investment round? Maybe you're considering crowdfunding because you HAVE pitched your idea to investors, and none of them have said yes... yet. That might actually be a feedback signal that you are not currently communicating a compelling business proposition. In my experience, investors are usually NOT courteous in giving a prompt or direct "no", and instead give you a to-do list of things they'd like to see before they'd consider the investment further. You're often educating them about a market view (for free!), why turn that down? With the Planetary Resources ARKYD Kickstarter, it was our *hope* that we would have been able to raise the entire amount needed (we estimated about $12M), as the Pebble watch had done just prior to our own campaign in 2013.We intentionally set our raise amount "low", with the idea that momentum and excitement would accelerate after easily passing the "funded" threshold. We were wrong about that, yet we crossed the threshold, so the project was technically "on." From then, we were optimistic that the "social proof" from the interest in Space Telescope access, and "Space Selfies" would help us find and close the revenue and sponsorship from other sources to complete the project. All of this was in-line with the thinking that we wanted to find and leverage revenue streams that were natural outcomes of our core business interest — creating small satellite platforms capable of prospecting resources on asteroids. But in 2016, after three years of trying, we weren't any closer to funding the project from a business use case that would serve a scalable revenue model. So we regrettably shut it down, and refunded as much of the funds that we were able, as it was the right thing to do. Referencing @mmealling's Christmas list, perhaps there are some reforms and improvements which could make it easier for earlier-stage space companies to get broader access to seed capital.There are also more space-focused funds like @SpaceAngels, @SpaceFundInc, @starbridgevc, @SeraphimCapital which are about the same effort as crowdfunding, but give you access to investors who can write larger $$$ checks, and give a higher leverage path to future funds & support. Another model is @AngelistList syndicate. Within ~24 hours of the opportunity being posted, I was able to raise about $2.5M to join in the Planetary Resources Series-A round. You have to find a "lead investor" though. help.venture.angel.co/hc/en-us/artic…Instead of resorting to a more forgiving investment environment like crowdfunding, you might be better served by listening carefully to the accumulated feedback about your business, adjust your approach, and try pitching it again. It might take 100 tries (not an exaggeration). That said, if you've already raised crowdfunding, or are in the midst of it, its not necessarily detrimental to your future! Focus on using those funds to meet milestones which are key in the progress towards serving your future customers, and building confidence for all. Crowdfunding end(rant).There aren't yet many space-related business models which can start with low capital and grow organically from revenues. Repeatedly closing investment continues to be a key part of the business strategy, and is as important as your business model itself. I'm interested in learning from the recent history of space and deep tech business funding and growth, and sharing what I learn. What is another perspective on funding and growing space companies?
