Hey Mistfpga, thanks for your comment, it was well-warranted. I hope I do it justice with my response below.
With regards to the “the new to community question,” I’m only semi-anon. You can look me up if you google the info I provided. I’m on Twitter at 88crypt. I’ve also interacted with a number of folks at ECC and Zfnd, whom I imagine you have access to.
In terms of your request to elaborate on the work I’m doing and how it may result in conflict, here are a few thoughts.
My work (past and present) involves having conversations with ecosystem players who are currency-agnostic. I try to figure out what problems they have with respect to crypto, and where the pockets of demand are. Some examples:
-
Does a merchant want to accept crypto from customers but are having a hard time getting past the compliance and operations teams? Here is a payments solution. Are there certain industries where the value proposition of crypto payments is strong, creating a path of least resistance and a clear go-to-market? Let’s target these industries first.
-
Do exchanges face a ceiling on trading volumes because fund customers are averse to leaving more than a fraction of their assets on-exchange, leading to lost opportunities for both exchanges and funds? Do investment funds face difficulties in fundraising because they can’t convince investors that they won’t run away with the money? Let’s solve these problems with intermediated custody.
(At a meta-level, these problems also limit the growth and development of crypto generally, since we need velocity and volume in order to effectively try new things - DeFI is a good example of this.) -
When an old-world enterprise attempts to work with crypto/blockchain projects, what are the problems they face? How do we make this work for both parties? A great example would be Bakkt/ICE and Fidelity trying to figure out custody.
I think the potential conflict lies on two levels:
A) On the first level, will I be biased against Zcash?
This is an easy “No,” because the businesses I work (and generally have a preference for) are currency-agnostic. They just want to work with whichever digital asset works best for them, whether from a liquidity, regulatory, or operations perspective.
From this angle, I will be able to help the MGRC investees figure out how best to achieve legitimacy and adoption.
B) On the second level, will I be conflicted with potential investees?
The value of the market knowledge I acquire from my work far exceeds the potential cost of conflict, for these reasons:
-
Payments and custody are only 2 of the many categories of innovation happening within crypto. There is a lot more innovation happening outside of these industries than within. Check out this market map shared by Chris Burniske on Twitter, where Payments and Trading/DEX account for about ~5-7% of the surface area: https://twitter.com/cburniske/status/919726894903447558
-
In addition, the companies I work with have raised tens of millions in funding, and have global offices. It’s unlikely that we will compete directly. If, however, a direct conflict emerges, like any good board member I should recuse myself as a matter of standard protocol (this rule should also be written into the MGRC bylaws)
-
I believe that for MGRC members that are highly involved in the community, an occasional conflict is unavoidable. This can definitely be said for MGRC members who are institutional investors or active angel investors. However, the insights gained from being actively involved in live projects are invaluable, and can rarely be achieved other than by working with these projects
Did I properly resolve your questions? Feel free to follow up with more 