Crypto House Auction

Earlier this month, through my work with Brave New Coin, I was lucky enough to attend the first live property auction to be conducted in cryptocurrency. Although the property was passed in on the day, the event generated enough interest and PR value that it will surely be only a matter of time before more large ticket assets are transacted in this way.

Image sourced from LJ Hooker

Let’s not forget that it’s nearly 9 years since Laszlo Hanyecz paid 10,000 BTC for two pizzas (then valued at about US$41).

Although we may not yet be paying for our morning espresso with Bitcoin, a growing number of merchants are enabling customers to pay for goods and services with crypto, via payment platforms and intermediaries such as Living Room of Satoshi, and TravelbyBit. And services such as Coin Loft and CoinJar make it easier to buy and sell the most popular cryptocurrencies without having to set up accounts on multiple exchanges.

Meanwhile, the house in Casuarina, on the northern coast of New South Wales, was passed in at 457 BTC (A$3.4m). The property was listed by LJ Hooker, and the auction was facilitated by TrigonX and Nuyen, while Brave New Coin supplied real-time market data convert the crypto bids to Australian dollars.

Next week: Demo Day #1 – Startupbootcamp

 

Pitch X

Organised by Academy Xi in conjunction with Melbourne Silicon Beach, the latest edition of Pitch X was hosted at YBF Ventures last week. The event sponsorship, prizes and judging panel came from Everest Engineering, Luna, Shiftiez, Lander & Rogers, LaunchLink and YBF Ventures itself.

Image sourced from Pitch X Eventbrite page

Each each start-up was given 90 seconds to pitch, followed by a one-minute Q&A with the judges. The best three presentations were then shortlisted and invited back on stage to make a 5-minute pitch, followed by a 2 minute Q&A.

Some of the pitches were really only ideas, a few had reached MVP status, and a couple were in advanced beta with actual customers. And most of the projects still at the drawing board lacked key tech skills and resources to execute on their ideas. So there was a bit of an imbalance across the initial presentations. It’s not for nothing that most successful hackathon teams comprise a hacker, a hipster and a hustler…

In order of presentation the pitches were (website links where available are embedded in the startup names):

Backyarda – “the spontaneous experience curator”, promoting unsold event inventory via Facebook Messenger. Needs a co-founder and development skills as well as seed funding. Takes a 30% sales commission, and is at MVP stage, targeting 18-35 year olds.

Virtual Amputee Experience – providing training to prosthetic users and raising empathy and public awareness. Positioned as a research tool and data acquisition model. Seeking funding for software and hardware development. It’s a spin-off from an academic research project. Judges asked about the revenue modelling and the data privacy issues.

Betabot – by Beta Launch – “Empowering teammates, Supercharging augmented teams”. Designed as a Slack plug-in. The solution is in fact a time-zone calendar management tool. (But as the MC noted, it’s also the name of a computer virus…)

The Neighbourhood Effect – “your local green living guide”. Making it easier (and financially positive) to be green. Employs gamification and behavioral science, for example a User Questionnaire model. Free version plus white label solution for local governments, and product providers. IP resides in the data mapping. Has had success in ACT via a rapid local campaign model.

The Good Bite – “providing financial independence to women who are suffering domestic violence”. A social enterprise for corporate catering, offering training and employment opportunities.

Young Adult Grief Space – “online counselling service”. Based on a P2P experience via shared narratives. Very much an idea at this stage, judges asked how sessions would be moderated, and how professional counsellors would be involved.

Pearlii – “dental checkups via selfie”. Aimed at early detection and prevention.
Uses a smart phone app to take 5 photos, then applies a diagnostic algorithm via ML and image processing. Freemium model – a basic account plus a premium profile management solution. Building their own tech/IP from scratch, and see future applications in tele-medicine, removing reliance on experts, placing trust in AI, image processing and analysis.

Inside Outcomes – “better communications between psychologists and their patients between sessions”. An app to chart personal outcomes etc. Judges asked how it integrates with existing patient management systems? Currently much of the work is done manually.

Abadog – “behavioural advice for dog owners”. Consultation via observed data and individual report delivered online. 20% of dogs have anxiety disorder. There is a lack of certification or legislated standards for best practice for dog trainers and behaviouralists. Aiming for a subscription model.

The Social Agenda – “Efficacy and Integrity in Government”. Talked about three different modules for public policy design, deliberation and decision-making. Goal is “Policy Certainty”. Wasn’t clear what the actual project involves, so hard to evaluate the concept.

Winners were:

1st prize –  Neighbourhood Effect

2nd prize – Pearlii

3rd prize – Abadog

Next week – Startup Vic’s SportsTech Pitch Night

Jump-cut videos vs Slow TV

In last week’s blog on the attention economy, I alluded to the trade-off that exists between our desire for more stimulus, and the need to consume more (sponsored) content to feed that hunger. Given the increasing demands on our available attention span, and the rate at which we are having to consume just to keep up, it feels like we are all developing a form of ADD – too much to choose from, too little time to focus on anything.

Christian Marclay – “The Clock” – image sourced from Time Out

Personally, I place a lot of the blame on music videos. Initially, this format merely reduced our attention span to the length of a 3-minute pop song. (Paradoxically, there was also a style known as the “long form music video”, which stretched those 3 minutes into a 10-20 minute extended narrative). Then, in recent years, the video format has been distilled to a series of jump cuts – no single shot lasts more than a few frames, and the back-n-forth between shots often has no narrative cohesion other than serving the technique of the jump-cut itself. I sometimes wonder if the reason for so many jump-cuts is because too few of today’s pop stars can really dance, forcing the director to distract our (minimal) attention from the poor moves. (Note: pop stars who can’t dance should take a leaf out of The Fall’s playbook, and call in the professionals, like Michael Clark…)

I have previously made a brief mention of Slow TV, which made a return to Australian channel SBS this summer in the form of trans-continental railway journeys, a UK barge trip (can it get any slower?) and a length-ways tour of New Zealand. These individual programs can screen for up to 18 hours, a perfect antidote to the ADD-inducing experience of jump-cut music videos and social media notifications.

Concurrently in Melbourne, two installation works are on display that, in their very separate ways also challenge the apparent obsession with rapid sensory overload in many of today’s video content.

The first is “The Clock”, by Christian Marclay – a sequence of finely edited clips sourced from a multitude of films and TV programmes that together act as a real-time 24 hour clock. The work also manages to reveal a beguiling (dare I say seamless?) narrative from such disparate and unrelated scenes that you really do begin to wonder how the story will end…. The fact that some of the scenes are quite mundane (and whose main function is to indicate the passage of time), while others are iconic cinematic moments, only adds to our real-time/real-life experience of the ebb and flow of the seconds, minutes and hours.

The second is almost the complete opposite. “Cataract”, by Daniel Von Sturmer comprises 81 screens, each showing looped sequences of somewhat banal events. Although each video event is no more than a few seconds, and none of the loops are synchronised with each other, it does not feel like a series of jump-cut edits. This is partly because the events, despite their brevity, are all engaging in their own way; and partly because even though we know it is a loop, we somehow expect something different to happen each time (maybe because our brain is wired to find a narrative even when none exists?).

According to the gallery’s description of “Cataract”, “the world is full of happenings, but it is only through selective attention that meaning is found”. Quite appropriate for the attention economy and jump-cut culture – meaning is where we choose to see it, but if we are not paying the appropriate amount of attention or if we are not viewing through a critical lens, we risk missing it altogether.

Next week: The Future of Fintech

 

Blipverts vs the Attention Economy

There’s a scene in Nicolas Roeg’s 1976 film, “The Man Who Fell To Earth”, where David Bowie’s character sits watching a bank of TV screens, each tuned to a different station. At the same time he is channel surfing – either because his alien powers allow him to absorb multiple, simultaneous inputs, or because his experience of ennui on Earth leads him to seek more and more stimulus. Obviously a metaphor for the attention economy, long before such a term existed.

Watching the alien watching us… Image sourced from Flicker

At the time in the UK, we only had three TV channels to choose from, so the notion of 12 or more seemed exotic, even other worldly. And of those three channels, only one carried advertising. Much the same situation existed in British radio, with only one or two commercial networks, alongside the dominant BBC. So we had relatively little exposure to adverts, brand sponsorship or paid content in our broadcast media. (Mind you, this was still the era when tobacco companies could plaster their logos all over sporting events…)

For all its limitations, there were several virtues to this model. First, advertising airtime was at a premium (thanks to the broadcast content ratios), and ad spend was concentrated – so adverts really had to grab your attention. (Is it any wonder that so many successful film directors cut their teeth on commercials?) Second, this built-in monopoly often meant bigger TV production budgets, more variety of content and better quality programming on free-to-air networks than we typically see today with the over-reliance on so-called reality TV. Third, with less viewing choice, there was a greater shared experience among audiences – and more communal connection because we could talk about similar things.

Then along came cable and satellite networks, bringing more choice (and more advertising), but not necessarily better quality content. In fact, with TV advertising budgets spread more thinly, it’s not surprising that programming suffered. Networks had to compete for our attention, and they funded this by bombarding us with more ads and more paid content. (And this is before we even get to the internet age and time-shift, streaming and multicast platforms…)

Despite the increased viewing choices, broadcasting became narrow-casting – smaller and more fractured viewership, with programming appealing to niche audiences. Meanwhile, in the mid-80s (and soon after the launch of MTV), “Max Headroom” is credited with coining the term “blipvert”, meaning a very, very short (almost subliminal) television commercial. Although designed as a narrative device in the Max Headroom story, the blipvert can be seen as either a test of creativity (how to get your message across in minimal time); or a subversive propaganda technique (nefarious elements trying to sabotage your thinking through subtle suggestion and infiltration).

Which is essentially where we are in the attention economy. Audiences are increasingly disparate, and the battle for eyeballs (and minds) is being fought out across multiple devices, multiple screens, and multiple formats. In our search for more stimulation, and unless we are willing to pay for premium services and/or an ad-free experience, we are having to endure more ads that pop-up during our YouTube viewing, Spotify streaming or internet browsing. As a result, brands are trying to grab our attention, at increasing frequency, and for shorter, yet more rapid and intensive periods. (Even Words With Friends is offering in-game tokens in return for watching sponsored content.)

Some consumers are responding with ad-blockers, or by dropping their use of social media altogether; or they want payment for their valuable time. I think we are generally over the notion of giving away our personal data in return for some “free” services – the price in terms of intrusions upon our privacy is no longer worth paying. So, brands are having to try harder to capture our attention, and they need to personalize their message to make it seem relevant and worthy of our time – provided we are willing to let them know enough about our preferences, location, demographics, etc. so that they can serve up relevant and engaging content to each and every “audience of one”. And brands also want proof that the ads they have paid for have been seen by the people they intended to reach.

This delicate trade-off (between privacy, personalisation and payment) is one reason why the attention economy is seen as a prime use case for Blockchain and cryptocurrency: consumers can retain anonymity, while still sharing selected personal information (which they own and control) with whom they wish, when they wish, for as long as they wish, and they can even get paid to access relevant content; brands can receive confirmation that the personalised content they have paid for has been consumed by the people they intended to see it; and distributed ledgers can maintain a record of account and send/receive payments via smart contracts and digital wallets when and where the relevant transactions have taken place.

Next week: Jump-cut videos vs Slow TV