@waynakyo Sorry, I'm not in, at least not as a guy you can count on because I have some other duties that have priority. I'm happy to drop some ideas here and there though. Also, just to clarify and cause I don't want to give a wrong impression: I don't work in finance. It just happens that I provide a certain set of technical services which are often required when big investments or M&As happen. That's how I got insight into some aspects of this business.
The problem with some of the more knowledgeable and active members on these forums is, though, that they can be very dogmatic and narrow-minded. They may have scientific literacy but lack the (life and subject) experience to see their own limitations. One-eyed in the land of the blind, basically.
That being said, I am happy that you @waynakyo are picking this idea up; you have always been a great contributor on these forums and unlike others not been arrogant, dogmatic or narrow-minded because of it. Other people I could see being a valuable addition would be @INT or @ChemHead. Another idea would be to get Will Rassman on board.
Some thoughts:
Don't run off buying any machines just yet. Expenditures must be aligned with strategy. If you as an organization want to provide testing services as a membership bonus (which could pay off by getting more donors on board), great. But before you spend any money, long, medium and short term strategies should be decided. I am a fan of strategy diversification, by the way.
instead of reinventing the wheel, we should use similar past endeavors focused on speeding up research as examples. Some ideas:
- CoViD vaccine development
- Hyperloop
- DARPA challenges
These often really advanced their fields quickly. And what do they have in common? They were designed as challenges or bounties. That's why I suggested the different pots (basic research/seed funding, investment/milestone payments, and bounties/challenges).
And one more thing to consider: When setting up a private foundation or fund (not the same thing!), there are several ways of doing this. You could run a fund, for example, for greater autonomy. Technically, a for-profit investment fund might also be possible (if that would benefit our cause is another question). You could have a system where people can add or withdraw their money at will; or you could make it one-way. You could have a pledge system where people would make legally binding pledges (probably not advisable because not realistically enforceable). You could have a membership fee system with different membership levels to ensure constant cash flow (levels corresponding to different rewards, like access to a LC/MS testing or priority access to funded research or prototypes). Depending on what you do, there are various regulations to take into account.
I suggest a different set of milestones:
1. finding a good core team
2. brainstorming strategy
3. brainstorming legal form and mechanisms
4. Coming up with a financial plan for minimum expenditures (this whole thing will need legal advise and accounting)
5. setting up org, website, compliance mechanisms
6. executing strategy
The problem with some of the more knowledgeable and active members on these forums is, though, that they can be very dogmatic and narrow-minded. They may have scientific literacy but lack the (life and subject) experience to see their own limitations. One-eyed in the land of the blind, basically.
That being said, I am happy that you @waynakyo are picking this idea up; you have always been a great contributor on these forums and unlike others not been arrogant, dogmatic or narrow-minded because of it. Other people I could see being a valuable addition would be @INT or @ChemHead. Another idea would be to get Will Rassman on board.
Some thoughts:
Don't run off buying any machines just yet. Expenditures must be aligned with strategy. If you as an organization want to provide testing services as a membership bonus (which could pay off by getting more donors on board), great. But before you spend any money, long, medium and short term strategies should be decided. I am a fan of strategy diversification, by the way.
instead of reinventing the wheel, we should use similar past endeavors focused on speeding up research as examples. Some ideas:
- CoViD vaccine development
- Hyperloop
- DARPA challenges
These often really advanced their fields quickly. And what do they have in common? They were designed as challenges or bounties. That's why I suggested the different pots (basic research/seed funding, investment/milestone payments, and bounties/challenges).
And one more thing to consider: When setting up a private foundation or fund (not the same thing!), there are several ways of doing this. You could run a fund, for example, for greater autonomy. Technically, a for-profit investment fund might also be possible (if that would benefit our cause is another question). You could have a system where people can add or withdraw their money at will; or you could make it one-way. You could have a pledge system where people would make legally binding pledges (probably not advisable because not realistically enforceable). You could have a membership fee system with different membership levels to ensure constant cash flow (levels corresponding to different rewards, like access to a LC/MS testing or priority access to funded research or prototypes). Depending on what you do, there are various regulations to take into account.
I suggest a different set of milestones:
1. finding a good core team
2. brainstorming strategy
3. brainstorming legal form and mechanisms
4. Coming up with a financial plan for minimum expenditures (this whole thing will need legal advise and accounting)
5. setting up org, website, compliance mechanisms
6. executing strategy
Last edited:
