I'm Moderating a Panel at Inside Bitcoin 2014 Looking for Feedback

[Gliph]

Hey BitcoinTalk folks,

After participating in Bitcoin 2013 and the Inside Bitcoin in Las Vegas, in April, I'll be moderating a panel at the Inside Bitcoin conference in New York. I'm posting to get feedback from this community on two things: what can be done to improve transparency via disclosures and what questions you'd like asked of the panel.

Sensible Disclosures
It is common practice for journalists to write disclosures to help a reader understand the role of bias in their reporting. For example, bloggers reporting on Bitcoin will say roughly how much currency they hold. Similarly, when reporting on a media company owned by the employer of the writer they'll state the a connection.

It seems less common for speakers at Bitcoin industry conferences to disclose financial interest in the subject they're talking about.

I am exploring whether verbal or written disclosures of speakers could improve the quality of content presented to audiences by revealing potential for bias.

For example, an investor that has invested in a particular startup founder's company are on the same panel. During introductions, the moderator would also state the business relationship between the panelists. This seems reasonable to me.

However, I am less sure whether it is important for speakers to also disclose if they hold a crypto currency they are speaking about. For example, in a talk on alt-currencies, a panelist speaking about the benefits of Litecoin discloses they hold more than a trivial amount of the currency. Arguments against this might say financial holdings are a private matter. Arguments for it would say this improves the transparency of speculation on a risky marketplace people are investing their money.

I'm curious about any feedback on disclosures of speakers at conferences the BitcoinTalk community thinks might be appropriate.

Questions for Panelists
I have put together a great set of speakers for the panel I'm moderating. The title of the panel is The Bitcoin Startup Ecosystem

Bitcoin has been a major draw for entrepreneurs as venture capital has eagerly embraced Bitcoin as a technology. But what kinds of opportunities are available to entrepreneurs interested in Bitcoin today. For active players, what are the challenges and the exciting possibilities on the horizon? This panel includes entrepreneurs, venture capitalists and technology journalists to discuss what is currently hot in the entrepreneurial space for Bitcoin.

The panelists are:

• Kyle Drake - Coinpunk
• Adam Draper - Boost VC
• Kashmir Hill - Forbes
• John Biggs - TechCrunch
• Dan Held - ZeroBlock (Blockchain.info)

I want to focus on the questions from people who are interested in possibly starting or joining a Bitcoin-related startup. But I'm willing to take other questions if they're relevant.  Let me know if you have any ideas or areas you would like explored.

Rob

[bg002h]

Well, as a physician, our common practice is to disclose any possible conflict of interest. I think asking speakers to disclose which crypto currencies they hold in investment amounts is appropriate. I suspect everyone would know the answer anyhow.

I also think knowing what projects they donate to or contribute code to would also be helpful. I think keeping it voluntary is a good idea. 

[_Miracle]

Specific amounts shouldn't be required but it is interesting to know. At this point when people are speaking in panels (favorably) about bitcoin my assumption is that they are invested.
I am invested in the whole idea of it and will be making an effort to get to the April N.Y. conference.

It's understandable that some people would be concerned about the issues surrounding conflict of interests in crypto but I like to hear the reasoning behind their interests not just how vested they are

[Ragnarly]

The Miami conference was particularly bad for speakers pumping their project, blatantly or subtly. I think disclosures are needed.

More useful than a panel would be a break out session connecting entrepreneurs with investors, and/or entrepreneurs looking for development partners. Panelists offer too general advice and echo each other. A lot of attendees sit through the talks just so they don't miss people in the hallway, where the real action takes place.

To answer your question, what if you divide the panel into two parts? The first 30 minutes in a traditional format. The last 30 minutes, direct each speaker to an area of the room where attendees can speak with them about their project or get specific advice.

[Gliph]

Thanks for all the replies so far.

Specific amounts shouldn't be required but it is interesting to know. At this point when people are speaking in panels (favorably) about bitcoin my assumption is that they are invested.

I've heard this in verbal discussions I've had on this topic. There is some level of expectation that if you're going to a conference on Bitcoin that people speaking about it hold it and that is why they are discussing its value / the value of particular Bitcoin-related projects.

I am invested in the whole idea of it and will be making an effort to get to the April N.Y. conference.

Glad to hear this, I hope I run into you there.

It's understandable that some people would be concerned about the issues surrounding conflict of interests in crypto but I like to hear the reasoning behind their interests not just how vested they are

Can you give some more description of some ideas you have on what types of reasons might exist?
 

The Miami conference was particularly bad for speakers pumping their project, blatantly or subtly. I think disclosures are needed.

My concern is also here, where pumping a project requires you to be clear that you're invested in it financially or work on the team that is building it.

More useful than a panel would be a break out session connecting entrepreneurs with investors, and/or entrepreneurs looking for development partners. Panelists offer too general advice and echo each other. A lot of attendees sit through the talks just so they don't miss people in the hallway, where the real action takes place.

To answer your question, what if you divide the panel into two parts? The first 30 minutes in a traditional format. The last 30 minutes, direct each speaker to an area of the room where attendees can speak with them about their project or get specific advice.

This is an interesting idea. I'm not sure I could break apart the panel, as that is the format of the conference. On the other hand, we may be able to secure some small meeting areas for particular speakers along with slots that can be signed up for to meet individually with them after the panel session. The speakers would need to agree to this, and not all may be up for it. But I think a few folks from the panel I have here would say yes.

Thanks again for the feedback so far!

rob

[BittBurger]

Hi Rob -

The panel needs to include Andreas M. Antonopoulos.

He has been actively involved in consulting for Bitcoin startups on an almost weekly basis for the last year. 

Please do everything in your power to get him on the panel.  You may have some convincing to do, as he has a bad taste in his mouth for American conferences lately.

But he absolutely should not be left out.

Twitter: @aantonop is the best way to reach him.  I will PM you with his email too, if I can get ahold of it.  He spoke to a buddy of mine who is working on a Bitcoin startup, so I may have some more direct communication method for you to reach him.  I still have to check.

-B-

[Gliph]

Hi Rob - The panel needs to include Andreas M. Antonopoulos. <snip>

Thanks for the suggestion. Sure, contact info or an introduction would be good. I'm aware of his concerns on US conferences. At the very least it would be good to get his feedback before it happens.

[_Miracle]

Gliph,
before scrolling down to answer your question "Andreas M. Antonopoulos." was a portion to my answer. When he speaks of alts, he at least touches on the properties that make them unique.
Example: Freicoin has a demurrage fee. That idea from an experimental economic perspective is fascinating.

Talks of utilizing mining computing power for real world answers :as opposed to solving a block for an arbitrary number; perhaps we clean up the mathematics of the standard model?
Mining coins from the energy you produce through solar panels (Solarcoin saw it on CoinDesk)

I certainly don't want to waste my time at a convention being sold on pump and dump B.S. but I do want to know about  the other applications being built on, breaking off from and inspired by the bitcoin tech.
I don't think this is all about the money but of course that is a fascinating aspect.
I hope bitcoin and alts succeed in their currency forms because money isn't working but crypto currencies may be the complementary piece that is missing from our monetary systems.

I want to hear smart people talking about what they are into and why they are in.