How can we create ways to incubate and foster technology that supports us as humans within a capital/financing environment that doesn't prioritize this?

There are many components here - one is that the traditional ways social tech has 'succeeded' is to have funds to pay developers and other folks to work on the product/company before there's any revenue OR to have the financial means to be able to fund something yourself- and even just being able to afford to not take a salary for the time it takes to get set up is a barrier.

A tied-in issue is that many social tech products that get investment do so in the "just scale and worry about revenue later" model which sounds wonderful at the beginning- people don't have to pay to use it, so it's accessible, and the benefits of network effect are easier to achieve since there's not a cost involved. AND the complexities of paying for tech when what you really value are the relationships the tech enables get to be punted until later- but most of the time that means a game where advertising and surveillance become the solution.

But even putting that aside and talking about building any kind of tech (not just social) that also has a “for-good” objective, it's obvious that a lot of people are left out of the current ways to fund tech companies.

We can’t just try to change who is getting funded, because when we want to have a business with social impact that operates with a systems-thinking perspective, even a little seed funding from VC where there’s a loss of control, pressure to “get to an exit” quickly, give investors back 2x or 3x before anyone else gets anything, leads to misalignment with technology that actually benefits people in the long run (by people, I mean not just investors and founders).

Even companies that can and should scale could do so without the pressures of VC.

ESG is not the answer, because it’s simply a sub-category of what already works for VC-model businesses.

We need a new ECOSYSTEM, not simply a way to get more VC investment.

<aside> 💡 TL/DR: 1. Fund for social impact, not just returns; 2. Distribute risks to ensure sustainable returns; 3. Use collaborative models

</aside>

The paradox of VC-backed tech

Interestingly, many LPs put money into VC while their overall mission is helping people. The idea is diversification, and having some investment in high-risk, high-return vehicles. The alternative to VC isn’t just a different flavour of VC, but it’s also not just grants and donations.

We need a way to align these interests:

1. Humans who benefit from technology and are not required to become a product in the process
2. Investors who do not want to lose money
3. Foundations and individuals who want to see more responsible technology and technology that benefits their communities
4. Tech startups who have great ideas, teams, and a viable path to sustainability
5. Advisors and experts who want their expertise and knowledge to benefit humanity through the lens of tech

One of the concepts I am generally working around has to do with scale. To me, many things about the way we build in technology have to do with scaling the ‘wrong way:’ where the scale serves the business or the revenue and not the people who use the product. This is a fundamentally corporatist dilemma, where investors, advertisers, and shareholders have primacy. whereas stakeholders can include workers and the people who actually depend on the technology. However, scale itself is desirable if we wish to have impact on the world at large.