Crypto Legislation Might Progress Beyond Talk in 2022
Financial regulators have for years attempted to apply existing laws to the multitude of issues created by digital assets. In 2021, leading federal regulators and members of Congress have begun to call for legislation to address these issues. As a result, 2022 may be the year when federal legislation finally addresses digital asset issues that have been growing since the mining of the first Bitcoin block in 2009.
Digital Asset Regulation in the Absence of Legislation
So far, Congress has left the task of addressing issues created by digital assets to regulatory agencies. Although a Congressional Blockchain Caucus formed in 2016, House and Senate members introduced few bills addressing digital assets until 2018. As of October 2021, Congress has not amended federal laws on financial regulation, which were last significantly revised by the Dodd-Frank Act in 2010, to address digital asset issues.
In the absence of legislation, issues that do not fit well into existing statutes have created problems. An example is the legal status of digital assets, which can be considered to be either securities or commodities, and can even shift from one to the other over time. Years after the SEC’s 2017 report applying the definition of a security to digital tokens, the SEC and the CFTC have yet to clarify the distinction between securities and commodities for the thousands of digital assets in existence.
SEC Chair Gary Gensler has called for Congress to act, stating in August, “We need additional Congressional authorities to prevent transactions, products, and platforms from falling between regulatory cracks.” Gensler has reached out to Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Ma.), who has expressed her own concerns about the need for legislation.
Legislation on Digital Assets in 2021
While regulators and members of Congress talked about the need for legislation, and the debate over cryptocurrency tax reporting in the 2021 infrastructure bill generated headlines, House and Senate bills proposing specific solutions to various issues quietly started to emerge.
Digital Token Sales
Several House bills attempt to address securities law barriers to digital token sales—some of them by building on ideas proposed by regulators in past years.
Exclusion from the definition of a security. Congressional Blockchain Caucus members have been introducing bills to exclude digital tokens from the definition of a security since 2018, and they have revived those bills in 2021. They include the Token Taxonomy Act of 2021 (H.R. 1628), successor to identically named bills in 2018 and 2019, and the Securities Clarity Act (H.R. 4451), successor to a 2020 namesake.
Safe harbor. SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce proposed a regulatory safe harbor for token sales in 2020, and two 2021 bills have proposed statutory safe harbors. Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.), Republican leader of the House Financial Services Committee, introduced a Clarity for Digital Tokens Act of 2021 (H.R. 5496) that would amend the Securities Act to create a safe harbor providing a grace period of exemption from Securities Act registration requirements. The Digital Asset Market Structure and Investor Protection Act (H.R. 4741) from Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) would amend the Securities Exchange Act to define a new type of security—a “digital asset security”—and add issuers of digital asset securities to an existing provision for delayed registration of securities.
Stablecoins
Stablecoins—digital currencies linked to the value of the U.S. dollar or other fiat currencies—have not yet been the subject of regulatory action, although Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell have each underscored the need to create a regulatory framework for them. The Beyer bill proposes to create a regulatory regime for stablecoins by amending Title 31 of the U.S. Code. Treasury Department approval would be required for any “digital asset fiat-based stablecoin” to be issued or used, under an application process to be established by Treasury in consultation with the Federal Reserve, the SEC, and the CFTC.
Serious consideration for any of these proposals in the current session of Congress may be unlikely. A spate of autumn bills on crypto ransom payments (S. 2666, S. 2923, S. 2926, H.R. 5501) shows that Congress is more inclined to pay attention first to issues that are more spectacular and less arcane. Moreover, the arcaneness of digital asset regulatory issues is likely only to increase further, now that major industry players such as Coinbase and Andreessen Horowitz are starting to roll out their own regulatory proposals.
Digital Dollar vs. Digital Yuan
Impetus to pass legislation on another type of digital asset, a central bank digital currency (CBDC), may come from a different source: rivalry with China.
China established itself as a world leader in developing a CBDC with a pilot project launched in 2020, and in 2021, the People’s Bank of China announced that its CBDC will be used at the Beijing Winter Olympics in February 2022. Republican Senators responded by calling for the U.S. Olympic Committee to forbid use of China’s CBDC by U.S. athletes in Beijing and introducing a bill (S. 2543) to require a study of its national security implications.
The Beijing Olympics could motivate a legislative mandate to accelerate implementation of a U.S. digital dollar, which the Federal Reserve has been in the process of considering in 2021. Antecedents to such legislation already exist. A House bill sponsored by 46 Republicans (H.R. 4792) has a provision that would require the Treasury Department to assess China’s CBDC project and report on the status of Federal Reserve work on a CBDC, and the Beyer bill includes a provision amending the Federal Reserve Act to authorize issuing a digital dollar.
Both parties are likely to support creating a digital dollar. The Covid-19 pandemic made a digital dollar for delivery of relief payments a popular idea in 2020, and House Democrats introduced bills with provisions for creating one in 2020 and 2021. Bipartisan support for a bill on a digital dollar, based on concerns both foreign and domestic in nature, could result.
International rivalry and bipartisan support may make the digital dollar a gateway issue for digital asset legislation in 2022. Legislative work on a digital dollar may open the door for considering further digital asset issues—including the regulatory issues that have been emerging for years—in 2022 and beyond.
(Edited)
More on Web3 & Crypto
OnChain Wizard
3 years ago
How to make a >800 million dollars in crypto attacking the once 3rd largest stablecoin, Soros style
Everyone is talking about the $UST attack right now, including Janet Yellen. But no one is talking about how much money the attacker made (or how brilliant it was). Lets dig in.
Our story starts in late March, when the Luna Foundation Guard (or LFG) starts buying BTC to help back $UST. LFG started accumulating BTC on 3/22, and by March 26th had a $1bn+ BTC position. This is leg #1 that made this trade (or attack) brilliant.
The second leg comes in the form of the 4pool Frax announcement for $UST on April 1st. This added the second leg needed to help execute the strategy in a capital efficient way (liquidity will be lower and then the attack is on).
We don't know when the attacker borrowed 100k BTC to start the position, other than that it was sold into Kwon's buying (still speculation). LFG bought 15k BTC between March 27th and April 11th, so lets just take the average price between these dates ($42k).
So you have a ~$4.2bn short position built. Over the same time, the attacker builds a $1bn OTC position in $UST. The stage is now set to create a run on the bank and get paid on your BTC short. In anticipation of the 4pool, LFG initially removes $150mm from 3pool liquidity.
The liquidity was pulled on 5/8 and then the attacker uses $350mm of UST to drain curve liquidity (and LFG pulls another $100mm of liquidity).
But this only starts the de-pegging (down to 0.972 at the lows). LFG begins selling $BTC to defend the peg, causing downward pressure on BTC while the run on $UST was just getting started.
With the Curve liquidity drained, the attacker used the remainder of their $1b OTC $UST position ($650mm or so) to start offloading on Binance. As withdrawals from Anchor turned from concern into panic, this caused a real de-peg as people fled for the exits
So LFG is selling $BTC to restore the peg while the attacker is selling $UST on Binance. Eventually the chain gets congested and the CEXs suspend withdrawals of $UST, fueling the bank run panic. $UST de-pegs to 60c at the bottom, while $BTC bleeds out.
The crypto community panics as they wonder how much $BTC will be sold to keep the peg. There are liquidations across the board and LUNA pukes because of its redemption mechanism (the attacker very well could have shorted LUNA as well). BTC fell 25% from $42k on 4/11 to $31.3k
So how much did our attacker make? There aren't details on where they covered obviously, but if they are able to cover (or buy back) the entire position at ~$32k, that means they made $952mm on the short.
On the $350mm of $UST curve dumps I don't think they took much of a loss, lets assume 3% or just $11m. And lets assume that all the Binance dumps were done at 80c, thats another $125mm cost of doing business. For a grand total profit of $815mm (bf borrow cost).
BTC was the perfect playground for the trade, as the liquidity was there to pull it off. While having LFG involved in BTC, and foreseeing they would sell to keep the peg (and prevent LUNA from dying) was the kicker.
Lastly, the liquidity being low on 3pool in advance of 4pool allowed the attacker to drain it with only $350mm, causing the broader panic in both BTC and $UST. Any shorts on LUNA would've added a lot of P&L here as well, with it falling -65% since 5/7.
And for the reply guys, yes I know a lot of this involves some speculation & assumptions. But a lot of money was made here either way, and I thought it would be cool to dive into how they did it.
Isaac Benson
3 years ago
What's the difference between Proof-of-Time and Proof-of-History?
Blockchain validates transactions with consensus algorithms. Bitcoin and Ethereum use Proof-of-Work, while Polkadot and Cardano use Proof-of-Stake.
Other consensus protocols are used to verify transactions besides these two. This post focuses on Proof-of-Time (PoT), used by Analog, and Proof-of-History (PoH), used by Solana as a hybrid consensus protocol.
PoT and PoH may seem similar to users, but they are actually very different protocols.
Proof-of-Time (PoT)
Analog developed Proof-of-Time (PoT) based on Delegated Proof-of-Stake (DPoS). Users select "delegates" to validate the next block in DPoS. PoT uses a ranking system, and validators stake an equal amount of tokens. Validators also "self-select" themselves via a verifiable random function."
The ranking system gives network validators a performance score, with trustworthy validators with a long history getting higher scores. System also considers validator's fixed stake. PoT's ledger is called "Timechain."
Voting on delegates borrows from DPoS, but there are changes. PoT's first voting stage has validators (or "time electors" putting forward a block to be included in the ledger).
Validators are chosen randomly based on their ranking score and fixed stake. One validator is chosen at a time using a Verifiable Delay Function (VDF).
Validators use a verifiable delay function to determine if they'll propose a Timechain block. If chosen, they validate the transaction and generate a VDF proof before submitting both to other Timechain nodes.
This leads to the second process, where the transaction is passed through 1,000 validators selected using the same method. Each validator checks the transaction to ensure it's valid.
If the transaction passes, validators accept the block, and if over 2/3 accept it, it's added to the Timechain.
Proof-of-History (PoH)
Proof-of-History is a consensus algorithm that proves when a transaction occurred. PoH uses a VDF to verify transactions, like Proof-of-Time. Similar to Proof-of-Work, VDFs use a lot of computing power to calculate but little to verify transactions, similar to (PoW).
This shows users and validators how long a transaction took to verify.
PoH uses VDFs to verify event intervals. This process uses cryptography to prevent determining output from input.
The outputs of one transaction are used as inputs for the next. Timestamps record the inputs' order. This checks if data was created before an event.
PoT vs. PoH
PoT and PoH differ in that:
PoT uses VDFs to select validators (or time electors), while PoH measures time between events.
PoH uses a VDF to validate transactions, while PoT uses a ranking system.
PoT's VDF-elected validators verify transactions proposed by a previous validator. PoH uses a VDF to validate transactions and data.
Conclusion
Both Proof-of-Time (PoT) and Proof-of-History (PoH) validate blockchain transactions differently. PoT uses a ranking system to randomly select validators to verify transactions.
PoH uses a Verifiable Delay Function to validate transactions, verify how much time has passed between two events, and allow validators to quickly verify a transaction without malicious actors knowing the input.
JEFF JOHN ROBERTS
3 years ago
What just happened in cryptocurrency? A plain-English Q&A about Binance's FTX takedown.
Crypto people have witnessed things. They've seen big hacks, mind-boggling swindles, and amazing successes. They've never seen a day like Tuesday, when the world's largest crypto exchange murdered its closest competition.
Here's a primer on Binance and FTX's lunacy and why it matters if you're new to crypto.
What happened?
CZ, a shrewd Chinese-Canadian billionaire, runs Binance. FTX, a newcomer, has challenged Binance in recent years. SBF (Sam Bankman-Fried)—a young American with wild hair—founded FTX (initials are a thing in crypto).
Last weekend, CZ complained about SBF's lobbying and then exploited Binance's market power to attack his competition.
How did CZ do that?
CZ invested in SBF's new cryptocurrency exchange when they were friends. CZ sold his investment in FTX for FTT when he no longer wanted it. FTX clients utilize those tokens to get trade discounts, although they are less liquid than Bitcoin.
SBF made a mistake by providing CZ just too many FTT tokens, giving him control over FTX. It's like Pepsi handing Coca-Cola a lot of stock it could sell at any time. CZ got upset with SBF and flooded the market with FTT tokens.
SBF owns a trading fund with many FTT tokens, therefore this was catastrophic. SBF sought to defend FTT's worth by selling other assets to buy up the FTT tokens flooding the market, but it didn't succeed, and as FTT's value plummeted, his liabilities exceeded his assets. By Tuesday, his companies were insolvent, so he sold them to his competition.
Crazy. How could CZ do that?
CZ likely did this to crush a rising competition. It was also personal. In recent months, regulators have been tough toward the crypto business, and Binance and FTX have been trying to stay on their good side. CZ believed SBF was poisoning U.S. authorities by saying CZ was linked to China, so CZ took retribution.
“We supported previously, but we won't pretend to make love after divorce. We're neutral. But we won't assist people that push against other industry players behind their backs," CZ stated in a tragic tweet on Sunday. He crushed his rival's company two days later.
So does Binance now own FTX?
No. Not yet. CZ has only stated that Binance signed a "letter of intent" to acquire FTX. CZ and SBF say Binance will protect FTX consumers' funds.
Who’s to blame?
You could blame CZ for using his control over FTX to destroy it. SBF is also being criticized for not disclosing the full overlap between FTX and his trading company, which controlled plenty of FTT. If he had been upfront, someone might have warned FTX about this vulnerability earlier, preventing this mess.
Others have alleged that SBF utilized customer monies to patch flaws in his enterprises' balance accounts. That happened to multiple crypto startups that collapsed this spring, which is unfortunate. These are allegations, not proof.
Why does this matter? Isn't this common in crypto?
Crypto is notorious for shady executives and pranks. FTX is the second-largest crypto business, and SBF was largely considered as the industry's golden boy who would help it get on authorities' good side. Thus far.
Does this affect cryptocurrency prices?
Short-term, it's bad. Prices fell on suspicions that FTX was in peril, then rallied when Binance rescued it, only to fall again later on Tuesday.
These occurrences have hurt FTT and SBF's Solana token. It appears like a huge token selloff is affecting the rest of the market. Bitcoin fell 10% and Ethereum 15%, which is bad but not catastrophic for the two largest coins by market cap.
You might also like
SAHIL SAPRU
3 years ago
How I grew my business to a $5 million annual recurring revenue
Scaling your startup requires answering customer demands, not growth tricks.
I cofounded Freedo Rentals in 2019. I reached 50 lakh+ ARR in 6 months before quitting owing to the epidemic.
Freedo aimed to solve 2 customer pain points:
Users lacked a reliable last-mile transportation option.
The amount that Auto walas charge for unmetered services
Solution?
Effectively simple.
Build ports at high-demand spots (colleges, residential societies, metros). Electric ride-sharing can meet demand.
We had many problems scaling. I'll explain using the AARRR model.
Brand unfamiliarity or a novel product offering were the problems with awareness. Nobody knew what Freedo was or what it did.
Problem with awareness: Content and advertisements did a poor job of communicating the task at hand. The advertisements clashed with the white-collar part because they were too cheesy.
Retention Issue: We encountered issues, indicating that the product was insufficient. Problems with keyless entry, creating bills, stealing helmets, etc.
Retention/Revenue Issue: Costly compared to established rivals. Shared cars were 1/3 of our cost.
Referral Issue: Missing the opportunity to seize the AHA moment. After the ride, nobody remembered us.
Once you know where you're struggling with AARRR, iterative solutions are usually best.
Once you have nailed the AARRR model, most startups use paid channels to scale. This dependence, on paid channels, increases with scale unless you crack your organic/inbound game.
Over-index growth loops. Growth loops increase inflow and customers as you scale.
When considering growth, ask yourself:
Who is the solution's ICP (Ideal Customer Profile)? (To whom are you selling)
What are the most important messages I should convey to customers? (This is an A/B test.)
Which marketing channels ought I prioritize? (Conduct analysis based on the startup's maturity/stage.)
Choose the important metrics to monitor for your AARRR funnel (not all metrics are equal)
Identify the Flywheel effect's growth loops (inertia matters)
My biggest mistakes:
not paying attention to consumer comments or satisfaction. It is the main cause of problems with referrals, retention, and acquisition for startups. Beyond your NPS, you should consider second-order consequences.
The tasks at hand should be quite clear.
Here's my scaling equation:
Growth = A x B x C
A = Funnel top (Traffic)
B = Product Valuation (Solving a real pain point)
C = Aha! (Emotional response)
Freedo's A, B, and C created a unique offering.
Freedo’s ABC:
A — Working or Studying population in NCR
B — Electric Vehicles provide last-mile mobility as a clean and affordable solution
C — One click booking with a no-noise scooter
Final outcome:
FWe scaled Freedo to Rs. 50 lakh MRR and were growing 60% month on month till the pandemic ceased our growth story.
How we did it?
We tried ambassadors and coupons. WhatsApp was our most successful A/B test.
We grew widespread adoption through college and society WhatsApp groups. We requested users for referrals in community groups.
What worked for us won't work for others. This scale underwent many revisions.
Every firm is different, thus you must know your customers. Needs to determine which channel to prioritize and when.
Users desired a safe, time-bound means to get there.
This (not mine) growth framework helped me a lot. You should follow suit.
Theresa W. Carey
3 years ago
How Payment for Order Flow (PFOF) Works
What is PFOF?
PFOF is a brokerage firm's compensation for directing orders to different parties for trade execution. The brokerage firm receives fractions of a penny per share for directing the order to a market maker.
Each optionable stock could have thousands of contracts, so market makers dominate options trades. Order flow payments average less than $0.50 per option contract.
Order Flow Payments (PFOF) Explained
The proliferation of exchanges and electronic communication networks has complicated equity and options trading (ECNs) Ironically, Bernard Madoff, the Ponzi schemer, pioneered pay-for-order-flow.
In a December 2000 study on PFOF, the SEC said, "Payment for order flow is a method of transferring trading profits from market making to brokers who route customer orders to specialists for execution."
Given the complexity of trading thousands of stocks on multiple exchanges, market making has grown. Market makers are large firms that specialize in a set of stocks and options, maintaining an inventory of shares and contracts for buyers and sellers. Market makers are paid the bid-ask spread. Spreads have narrowed since 2001, when exchanges switched to decimals. A market maker's ability to play both sides of trades is key to profitability.
Benefits, requirements
A broker receives fees from a third party for order flow, sometimes without a client's knowledge. This invites conflicts of interest and criticism. Regulation NMS from 2005 requires brokers to disclose their policies and financial relationships with market makers.
Your broker must tell you if it's paid to send your orders to specific parties. This must be done at account opening and annually. The firm must disclose whether it participates in payment-for-order-flow and, upon request, every paid order. Brokerage clients can request payment data on specific transactions, but the response takes weeks.
Order flow payments save money. Smaller brokerage firms can benefit from routing orders through market makers and getting paid. This allows brokerage firms to send their orders to another firm to be executed with other orders, reducing costs. The market maker or exchange benefits from additional share volume, so it pays brokerage firms to direct traffic.
Retail investors, who lack bargaining power, may benefit from order-filling competition. Arrangements to steer the business in one direction invite wrongdoing, which can erode investor confidence in financial markets and their players.
Pay-for-order-flow criticism
It has always been controversial. Several firms offering zero-commission trades in the late 1990s routed orders to untrustworthy market makers. During the end of fractional pricing, the smallest stock spread was $0.125. Options spreads widened. Traders found that some of their "free" trades cost them a lot because they weren't getting the best price.
The SEC then studied the issue, focusing on options trades, and nearly decided to ban PFOF. The proliferation of options exchanges narrowed spreads because there was more competition for executing orders. Options market makers said their services provided liquidity. In its conclusion, the report said, "While increased multiple-listing produced immediate economic benefits to investors in the form of narrower quotes and effective spreads, these improvements have been muted with the spread of payment for order flow and internalization."
The SEC allowed payment for order flow to continue to prevent exchanges from gaining monopoly power. What would happen to trades if the practice was outlawed was also unclear. SEC requires brokers to disclose financial arrangements with market makers. Since then, the SEC has watched closely.
2020 Order Flow Payment
Rule 605 and Rule 606 show execution quality and order flow payment statistics on a broker's website. Despite being required by the SEC, these reports can be hard to find. The SEC mandated these reports in 2005, but the format and reporting requirements have changed over the years, most recently in 2018.
Brokers and market makers formed a working group with the Financial Information Forum (FIF) to standardize order execution quality reporting. Only one retail brokerage (Fidelity) and one market maker remain (Two Sigma Securities). FIF notes that the 605/606 reports "do not provide the level of information that allows a retail investor to gauge how well a broker-dealer fills a retail order compared to the NBBO (national best bid or offer’) at the time the order was received by the executing broker-dealer."
In the first quarter of 2020, Rule 606 reporting changed to require brokers to report net payments from market makers for S&P 500 and non-S&P 500 equity trades and options trades. Brokers must disclose payment rates per 100 shares by order type (market orders, marketable limit orders, non-marketable limit orders, and other orders).
Richard Repetto, Managing Director of New York-based Piper Sandler & Co., publishes a report on Rule 606 broker reports. Repetto focused on Charles Schwab, TD Ameritrade, E-TRADE, and Robinhood in Q2 2020. Repetto reported that payment for order flow was higher in the second quarter than the first due to increased trading activity, and that options paid more than equities.
Repetto says PFOF contributions rose overall. Schwab has the lowest options rates, while TD Ameritrade and Robinhood have the highest. Robinhood had the highest equity rating. Repetto assumes Robinhood's ability to charge higher PFOF reflects their order flow profitability and that they receive a fixed rate per spread (vs. a fixed rate per share by the other brokers).
Robinhood's PFOF in equities and options grew the most quarter-over-quarter of the four brokers Piper Sandler analyzed, as did their implied volumes. All four brokers saw higher PFOF rates.
TD Ameritrade took the biggest income hit when cutting trading commissions in fall 2019, and this report shows they're trying to make up the shortfall by routing orders for additional PFOF. Robinhood refuses to disclose trading statistics using the same metrics as the rest of the industry, offering only a vague explanation on their website.
Summary
Payment for order flow has become a major source of revenue as brokers offer no-commission equity (stock and ETF) orders. For retail investors, payment for order flow poses a problem because the brokerage may route orders to a market maker for its own benefit, not the investor's.
Infrequent or small-volume traders may not notice their broker's PFOF practices. Frequent traders and those who trade larger quantities should learn about their broker's order routing system to ensure they're not losing out on price improvement due to a broker prioritizing payment for order flow.
This post is a summary. Read full article here
Navdeep Yadav
2 years ago
31 startup company models (with examples)
Many people find the internet's various business models bewildering.
This article summarizes 31 startup e-books.
1. Using the freemium business model (free plus premium),
The freemium business model offers basic software, games, or services for free and charges for enhancements.
Examples include Slack, iCloud, and Google Drive
Provide a rudimentary, free version of your product or service to users.
Google Drive and Dropbox offer 15GB and 2GB of free space but charge for more.
Freemium business model details (Click here)
2. The Business Model of Subscription
Subscription business models sell a product or service for recurring monthly or yearly revenue.
Examples: Tinder, Netflix, Shopify, etc
It's the next step to Freemium if a customer wants to pay monthly for premium features.
Subscription Business Model (Click here)
3. A market-based business strategy
It's an e-commerce site or app where third-party sellers sell products or services.
Examples are Amazon and Fiverr.
On Amazon's marketplace, a third-party vendor sells a product.
Freelancers on Fiverr offer specialized skills like graphic design.
Marketplace's business concept is explained.
4. Business plans using aggregates
In the aggregator business model, the service is branded.
Uber, Airbnb, and other examples
Marketplace and Aggregator business models differ.
Amazon and Fiverr link merchants and customers and take a 10-20% revenue split.
Uber and Airbnb-style aggregator Join these businesses and provide their products.
5. The pay-as-you-go concept of business
This is a consumption-based pricing system. Cloud companies use it.
Example: Amazon Web Service and Google Cloud Platform (GCP) (AWS)
AWS, an Amazon subsidiary, offers over 200 pay-as-you-go cloud services.
“In short, the more you use the more you pay”
When it's difficult to divide clients into pricing levels, pay-as-you is employed.
6. The business model known as fee-for-service (FFS)
FFS charges fixed and variable fees for each successful payment.
For instance, PayU, Paypal, and Stripe
Stripe charges 2.9% + 30 per payment.
These firms offer a payment gateway to take consumer payments and deposit them to a business account.
Fintech business model
7. EdTech business strategy
In edtech, you generate money by selling material or teaching as a service.
edtech business models
Freemium When course content is free but certification isn't, e.g. Coursera
FREE TRIAL SkillShare offers free trials followed by monthly or annual subscriptions.
Self-serving marketplace approach where you pick what to learn.
Ad-revenue model The company makes money by showing adverts to its huge user base.
Lock-in business strategy
Lock in prevents customers from switching to a competitor's brand or offering.
It uses switching costs or effort to transmit (soft lock-in), improved brand experience, or incentives.
Apple, SAP, and other examples
Apple offers an iPhone and then locks you in with extra hardware (Watch, Airpod) and platform services (Apple Store, Apple Music, cloud, etc.).
9. Business Model for API Licensing
APIs let third-party apps communicate with your service.
Uber and Airbnb use Google Maps APIs for app navigation.
Examples are Google Map APIs (Map), Sendgrid (Email), and Twilio (SMS).
Business models for APIs
Free: The simplest API-driven business model that enables unrestricted API access for app developers. Google Translate and Facebook are two examples.
Developer Pays: Under this arrangement, service providers such as AWS, Twilio, Github, Stripe, and others must be paid by application developers.
The developer receives payment: These are the compensated content producers or developers who distribute the APIs utilizing their work. For example, Amazon affiliate programs
10. Open-source enterprise
Open-source software can be inspected, modified, and improved by anybody.
For instance, use Firefox, Java, or Android.
Google paid Mozilla $435,702 million to be their primary search engine in 2018.
Open-source software profits in six ways.
Paid assistance The Project Manager can charge for customization because he is quite knowledgeable about the codebase.
A full database solution is available as a Software as a Service (MongoDB Atlas), but there is a fee for the monitoring tool.
Open-core design R studio is a better GUI substitute for open-source applications.
sponsors of GitHub Sponsorships benefit the developers in full.
demands for paid features Earn Money By Developing Open Source Add-Ons for Current Products
Open-source business model
11. The business model for data
If the software or algorithm collects client data to improve or monetize the system.
Open AI GPT3 gets smarter with use.
Foursquare allows users to exchange check-in locations.
Later, they compiled large datasets to enable retailers like Starbucks launch new outlets.
12. Business Model Using Blockchain
Blockchain is a distributed ledger technology that allows firms to deploy smart contracts without a central authority.
Examples include Alchemy, Solana, and Ethereum.
Business models using blockchain
Economy of tokens or utility When a business uses a token business model, it issues some kind of token as one of the ways to compensate token holders or miners. For instance, Solana and Ethereum
Bitcoin Cash P2P Business Model Peer-to-peer (P2P) blockchain technology permits direct communication between end users. as in IPFS
Enterprise Blockchain as a Service (Baas) BaaS focuses on offering ecosystem services similar to those offered by Amazon (AWS) and Microsoft (Azure) in the web 3 sector. Example: Ethereum Blockchain as a Service with Bitcoin (EBaaS).
Blockchain-Based Aggregators With AWS for blockchain, you can use that service by making an API call to your preferred blockchain. As an illustration, Alchemy offers nodes for many blockchains.
13. The free-enterprise model
In the freeterprise business model, free professional accounts are led into the funnel by the free product and later become B2B/enterprise accounts.
For instance, Slack and Zoom
Freeterprise companies flourish through collaboration.
Start with a free professional account to build an enterprise.
14. Business plan for razor blades
It's employed in hardware where one piece is sold at a loss and profits are made through refills or add-ons.
Gillet razor & blades, coffee machine & beans, HP printer & cartridge, etc.
Sony sells the Playstation console at a loss but makes up for it by selling games and charging for online services.
Advantages of the Razor-Razorblade Method
lowers the risk a customer will try a product. enables buyers to test the goods and services without having to pay a high initial investment.
The product's ongoing revenue stream has the potential to generate sales that much outweigh the original investments.
Razor blade business model
15. The business model of direct-to-consumer (D2C)
In D2C, the company sells directly to the end consumer through its website using a third-party logistic partner.
Examples include GymShark and Kylie Cosmetics.
D2C brands can only expand via websites, marketplaces (Amazon, eBay), etc.
D2C benefits
Lower reliance on middlemen = greater profitability
You now have access to more precise demographic and geographic customer data.
Additional space for product testing
Increased customisation throughout your entire product line-Inventory Less
16. Business model: White Label vs. Private Label
Private label/White label products are made by a contract or third-party manufacturer.
Most amazon electronics are made in china and white-labeled.
Amazon supplements and electronics.
Contract manufacturers handle everything after brands select product quantities on design labels.
17. The franchise model
The franchisee uses the franchisor's trademark, branding, and business strategy (company).
For instance, KFC, Domino's, etc.
Subway, Domino, Burger King, etc. use this business strategy.
Many people pick a franchise because opening a restaurant is risky.
18. Ad-based business model
Social media and search engine giants exploit search and interest data to deliver adverts.
Google, Meta, TikTok, and Snapchat are some examples.
Users don't pay for the service or product given, e.g. Google users don't pay for searches.
In exchange, they collected data and hyper-personalized adverts to maximize revenue.
19. Business plan for octopuses
Each business unit functions separately but is connected to the main body.
Instance: Oyo
OYO is Asia's Airbnb, operating hotels, co-working, co-living, and vacation houses.
20, Transactional business model, number
Sales to customers produce revenue.
E-commerce sites and online purchases employ SSL.
Goli is an ex-GymShark.
21. The peer-to-peer (P2P) business model
In P2P, two people buy and sell goods and services without a third party or platform.
Consider OLX.
22. P2P lending as a manner of operation
In P2P lending, one private individual (P2P Lender) lends/invests or borrows money from another (P2P Borrower).
Instance: Kabbage
Social lending lets people lend and borrow money directly from each other without an intermediary financial institution.
23. A business model for brokers
Brokerages charge a commission or fee for their services.
Examples include eBay, Coinbase, and Robinhood.
Brokerage businesses are common in Real estate, finance, and online and operate on this model.
Buy/sell similar models Examples include financial brokers, insurance brokers, and others who match purchase and sell transactions and charge a commission.
These brokers charge an advertiser a fee based on the date, place, size, or type of an advertisement. This is known as the classified-advertiser model. For instance, Craiglist
24. Drop shipping as an industry
Dropshipping allows stores to sell things without holding physical inventories.
When a customer orders, use a third-party supplier and logistic partners.
Retailer product portfolio and customer experience Fulfiller The consumer places the order.
Dropshipping advantages
Less money is needed (Low overhead-No Inventory or warehousing)
Simple to start (costs under $100)
flexible work environment
New product testing is simpler
25. Business Model for Space as a Service
It's centered on a shared economy that lets millennials live or work in communal areas without ownership or lease.
Consider WeWork and Airbnb.
WeWork helps businesses with real estate, legal compliance, maintenance, and repair.
26. The business model for third-party logistics (3PL)
In 3PL, a business outsources product delivery, warehousing, and fulfillment to an external logistics company.
Examples include Ship Bob, Amazon Fulfillment, and more.
3PL partners warehouse, fulfill, and return inbound and outbound items for a charge.
Inbound logistics involves bringing products from suppliers to your warehouse.
Outbound logistics refers to a company's production line, warehouse, and customer.
27. The last-mile delivery paradigm as a commercial strategy
Last-mile delivery is the collection of supply chain actions that reach the end client.
Examples include Rappi, Gojek, and Postmates.
Last-mile is tied to on-demand and has a nighttime peak.
28. The use of affiliate marketing
Affiliate marketing involves promoting other companies' products and charging commissions.
Examples include Hubspot, Amazon, and Skillshare.
Your favorite youtube channel probably uses these short amazon links to get 5% of sales.
Affiliate marketing's benefits
In exchange for a success fee or commission, it enables numerous independent marketers to promote on its behalf.
Ensure system transparency by giving the influencers a specific tracking link and an online dashboard to view their profits.
Learn about the newest bargains and have access to promotional materials.
29. The business model for virtual goods
This is an in-app purchase for an intangible product.
Examples include PubG, Roblox, Candy Crush, etc.
Consumables are like gaming cash that runs out. Non-consumable products provide a permanent advantage without repeated purchases.
30. Business Models for Cloud Kitchens
Ghost, Dark, Black Box, etc.
Delivery-only restaurant.
These restaurants don't provide dine-in, only delivery.
For instance, NextBite and Faasos
31. Crowdsourcing as a Business Model
Crowdsourcing = Using the crowd as a platform's source.
In crowdsourcing, you get support from people around the world without hiring them.
Crowdsourcing sites
Open-Source Software gives access to the software's source code so that developers can edit or enhance it. Examples include Firefox browsers and Linux operating systems.
Crowdfunding The oculus headgear would be an example of crowdfunding in essence, with no expectations.