Hacker News new | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Kodak shares up as it announces KODAKCoin cryptocurrency (kodak.com)
187 points by robtaylor on Jan 9, 2018 | hide | past | web | favorite | 157 comments

>Utilizing blockchain technology, the KODAKOne platform will create an encrypted, digital ledger of rights ownership for photographers to register both new and archive work that they can then license within the platform. With KODAKCoin, participating photographers are invited to take part in a new economy for photography, receive payment for licensing their work immediately upon sale, and for both professional and amateur photographers, sell their work confidently on a secure blockchain platform.

There is no use case that KODAKCoin meets that other cyrptos don't, except that it's owned in house by Kodak. I really hate this trend of companies trying to create their own nonsense currency and then justifying it with "blockchain is great!". If blockchain was the reason you could just transact in almost any currency that isn't bitcoin (because fees). There's no new technology here, it's just Kodak trying to ride the free money wave of cryptocurrency speculation.

Pulling rights fees automatically could be accomplished via smart contracts, and without the mess of 'debt' being involved.

> it's just Kodak trying to ride the free money wave of cryptocurrency speculation.

Our company made a massive push last year for developers to be "using blockchain technology, now." No real direction as to what exactly needs to be solved with it, just that we need to be seen using it.

This was before several months before the whole Long Island Blockchain fiasco. Apparently, last year, "block chain experts" were meeting with CEOs of major companies and explaining to them that the blockchain is going to change the world and they need to start using the tech, lest they be forgotten.

Low-and-behold, six months later, there's a massive influx of companies announcing blockchain technologies (that don't make any sense). Makes me wish I asked who these "experts" were when I was told about it.

I keep seeing ´blockchain´ in proposals and start-up documents where the whole thing has been dragged in by the hair and through the weirdest of reasonings be made to seem like an integral part of the plan. It is a surefire way to end in the wastebin, but as long as there is enough dumb money tracking these projects I am afraid it will continue for a while to come.

It’s the new buzzword. Blockchain has very specific technical use cases that are not appropriate for networks where all participants know and trust each other.

I’m more curious why alternative governance models are not achieving more traction. The corporation as a way of governance is obsolete compared to a DAO.

Count me sceptical. Traditional companies have been doing fine for more than a thousand years. I'm not sure DAOs have managed to launch a single productive enterprise. Given that companies are basically groups of people doing some enterprise there is something to be said for them being able to meet in a room and chat as opposed to the DAO model of semi anonymous crypto holders voting.

It's going to take several DAOs being profitable and not getting exploited into oblivion for years before the idea can gain any traction.

Oh, "blockchain" is not a proper name or an uncountable noun, btw...

Guys billing $500 an hour to tell people what they want to hear.

How do I become this guy? I get paid $80 an hour for a much harder job.

Heh, I want to know how to get paid $80/hour :) , grass is always greener right?

The two of you could always partner up to split that one job, and both still get an at-least $170/hr raise :P

Guys billing $500 an hour to a third party to provide a CYA paper trail that shields the executive from criticism should everything blow up spectacularly.

Winklevoss PR men would be my best bet.

But for a company like Kodak to be beholden to a 3rd party development team is operational risk. Taking the proven technology and forking it under your centralized control seems like a smart move in my opinion. They're not trying to cash out on a digital currency, they're trying to leverage the smart contract tech that's shown to work.

Probably less of a risk than doing it in-house under management whose knowledge of blockchain comes exclusively from consultants whose interests are not aligned with Kodak's.

> it's just Kodak trying to ride the free money wave of cryptocurrency speculation

Can we blame them? Their stock is up 125% today [1]. 44 million shares traded on the NYSE on 43 million of these shares outstanding (Kodak has a weird cap structure). Literally every owner of Kodak Common New had the opportunity to cash out, simply on the coattails of management penning a press release. (Including management!)

[1] https://finance.google.com/finance?q=NYSE%3AKODK&ei=2yJVWuiB...

Yes, because the corresponding pop will dry up a lot of capital that could've otherwise been put to productive use.

Bullshit is shameful.

What productive use? It would just go to another bet to try and make money.

The stock market is not about giving companies capital anymore, it's about concentrating funds to the back accounts of the right people.

Management cannot until the information has been absorbed by the public, which is usually considered to be 2-3 working days.

Unless you're Intel.

There are of course frontmen or front companies doing the job

This was always going to be the end result of blockchain and cryptocurrency. It was one of the original criticisms of the tech - that "every company would make it's own coin".

Smart Contracts are never going to be as popular because they are neither very smart or the same as regular contracts - and have more overhead and larger vunerability anyhow.

And then they'll all fail, and people will again realize that simply appending ".com" or "blockchain" isn't actually a miraculous panacea. Meanwhile, legitimate uses of ".com" and "blockchain" will still continue to develop and grow.

Sure! I happen to quite like blockchain tech and I think it will end up being very interesting and useful.

However I don't think cryptocurrency (at least how it's pitched now) is where it will end up being useful. Bitcoin/etc hype is basically the same as the early 90s hype over the internet - broadly accurate about the possibilities but utterly misapplied and misdirected.

Yeah, it's not called the Hype Cycle for nothing[1]. Not sure about the latter part of your post -- I'm sure there are legitimate uses of blockchain tech, but on the other hand I'm sure I've seen any yet, personally.

EDIT: [1] Actually, it's pretty weird that this is even a thing given how interested we (as effectors of "tech") SHOULD be (but aren't) in how all of this has gone before. Granted, blockchains are a relatively recent invention, but just because it's technically doesn't mean that it's actually meaningfully different in effect/politics/etc.

Eh, bad typo there, it was supposed to be...: I'm not sure I've seen any yet [etc.]

(I'm sure most a'y'all got ma drift, but ya know. 'plogies, m'am)

That's exactly why what we need is a common framework such that when every person and company does make their own cryptocurrency, the exchanges can handle settlement and barter-matchmaking in a seamless and mostly automated fashion.

So if Kodak has a standing offer to register stock photos and do rights clearance and licensing forever for X Eastmans, and I have a standing offer to exchange software development services for Y Blammos per day, the computing power that people offer in exchange for Hypotheticoins cranks through an arcane and unspecified algorithm, then spits out a result where I get what I want, and I have to do some work for an ex-dental-hygienist that once worked for my dentist. And I also get some change for it. For doing the job, I not only get the Kodak service, but I also get a medium 2-topping pizza from the nearest Domino's, an oil change and brake inspection from my regular mechanic, and 3 weeks of lawn-mowing from a kid on the next block.

To my knowledge, Bitcoin can't do this, and an assortment of fragmented unitasker coins can't do it without an array of attached service businesses like Coinbase and BitPay.

I'm really keen on a future where cryptocurrency enables a gift-barter economy, where you can make wishes, and grant other people's wishes. The more you grant to others, the more you get in return. I think that's a kind of thing that most people can really support, but it hasn't happened already, because the administrative overhead is a nightmare. With human matchmakers in the loop, you can only reasonably handle big wishes, and so you can't pay people back for helping to grant them. And so the recipients are kids with terminal cancer or rescued animals or something, so the givers get paid with warm fuzzies, or a kind of pay-it-forward IOU that might possibly go all the way around the world and come back. With an automated and distributed system cranking away on it, you can get that jar of homemade pickles for calling up a complete stranger to wish them happy birthday, or get a free beer for reciting one line at the right time in someone's bizarre public performance art. Or maybe you can finally get that pothole filled in front of your house, and all you have to do is reduce 300 MB of traffic survey data to determine the 85th percentile of traffic speeds.

You can't stop everyone from making their own coins. Might as well try to make them all work together.

> every company would make it's own coin

The harder part, as with regular currencies is convincing people to use it. At least with regular currencies usage is enforced by the state, which guarantees a number of users. Even if confidence in that currency has collapsed, you still have to pay your taxes using it.

I can't wait to be in court with someone arguing that KODAKCoin is evidence of their ownership of their work, or to fight a malicious registration on the KODAKCoin platform by someone who registers public domain and non-owned works maliciously.

Explaining this nonsense to a judge is going to be the highlight of my year.

If the photo was already on the internet in a server, there are already records (like the Internet Archive) to verify that it had to have been created prior. The blockchain only adds an additional proof, but can't revert some past history that some other entity can verify actually happened.

Seems kind of silly to think that judges don’t wade into the technical and complex details of lawsuits everyday. What do you think adjudicating a dispute involves?

Piggybacking off popular cryptocurrencies has its own risks[1].

[1] https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions

That’s not a risk, that’s a remaining unsolved problem for blockchains in general (the balance between decentralization and throughput).

Solving the blockchain scalability issue by creating more blockchains makes no sense since limited supply is the very feature that makes blockchain unique.

Solving the double spend problem is synonymous with limiting supply (double spending is fine if you’re not trying to limit the supply of something).

Show me the same graph from ETH and XRP please. Bitcoin is outdated, Bitcoin is to us what ARPANET is to the Internet. Welcome to the future.

ETH: https://etherscan.io/chart/pendingtx

XRP: can't find, maybe you can provide it for us?

XRP == Ripple.

isn't this the main problem with digital currencies? it's easy to make one

Somebody was really rushed to publish this. I mean good lord the site they link to https://www.kodakcoin.com/ still has lipsum and what I can only assume are placeholder photos. Unless Jan Denecke really is a man of many faces.

Edit: Oh my god the background is an Adobe stock photo complete with watermark.

Edit2: No, Kodak you don't get to just take the site down. The internet never forgets. https://imgur.com/a/LtI2s

Haha, you caught that moments before they replaced it with a "we'll be online within 24 hours' message.

Sites rendering now with same stock photo : /

They must have some incredible cloning technology - the CEO, the COO, and the CTO are all clones!!

It's a storage optimization in the kodak photo technology - replacing one face with another.

It's the next step beyond the Xerox photocopiers: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/08/06/xerox_copier_flaw_m...

This is the real reason their stock is up.

The domain KODAKCoin.com was registered 7 days ago. Looks like someone jumped on the bandwagon and registered KODAKCo.in just today after the announcement.

Aaaand it's down. that was quick

Also, lorem ipsum on team page! Wow.

Something like this already exists: https://www.ascribe.io/ # I had to use it to submit some photos to a call for work a couple of years ago. After the call I wanted to delete the work, because I didn't want it hanging around in public view. Oh look! You can't! Because It's blockchain!

Immutable history is not always a compelling requirement, in fact sometimes it is at odds with many a use case.

This is what my criticism is, as well. A few days ago I had been pondering a similar concept of a blockchain-based platform for tracking image ownership. The main blocker I encountered while thinking about it was the problem of immutability. Specifically, what happens if something is wrong?

Like, the first problem I see here is a troll just importing images from all over the Internet and claiming ownership. If something like this happens, would it be possible for the actual artist to ever regain "ownership"?

You really think someone would do that? Just go on the blockchain and tell lies?

If the photo was already on the internet in a server, there are already records (like the Internet Archive) to verify that it had to have been created prior. The blockchain only adds an additional proof, but can't revert some past history that some other entity can verify actually happened.

Then why add the extra complexity of the blockchain at all?

You may be the only one who has the original raw file and publish a scaled down or compressed jpeg version. You should still have the negative.

Wouldn't it be enough to submit a hash of the photo? Then sure, that hash is around forever in the blockchain, but without the original photo that hash is useless. It can only be used to prove that the photo existed at the time the hash was added, and with a digital signature, who added it.

You could steal a photo by tweaking a single pixel or EXIF field, and suddenly it's an original image with no registered hash.

Yeah, any system like this has to deal with the analog hole somehow, and there really are no perfect solutions. Reminds me of the post the other day about a white noise video on Youtube getting a bunch of copyright infringement notices. You can take a signal out of the analog, but you can't take the analog out of a signal!

I think the difference is that Ascribe doesn't have a token, so payment doesn't take place on the platform. Ascribe is merely a registry & they are building tech that will scan the internet checking for unauthorized copies of work. I think the scanning ability is very powerful, but that's totally outside of blockchain! I think the value of KodakCoin is the payment mechanism, which in theory will be decentralized i.e. replace Paypal. I'm still trying to wrap my head around the benefits. Bottom line though, everyone knows Kodak and no one knows Ascribe, so I can see how Ascribe would be a good acquisition target for Kodak down the line! Please challenge me!

> I think the difference is that Ascribe doesn't have a token, so payment doesn't take place on the platform.

Who cares? More concretely, how many professional or semi-professional photographers care?

> Bottom line though, everyone knows Kodak and no one knows Ascribe

But Ascribe is building useful technology while Kodak throws around buzzwords.

> Immutable history is not always a compelling requirement, in fact sometimes it is at odds with many a use case.

Good point. Perhaps the technology will account for this somehow, and thus be distinguishable in some way from other blockchain technologies . . . ?

In some respects this seems like a better application of blockchain than a lot of ICOs.

On the other hand, it isn't clear how they're going to solve the oracle problem of deciding who has the canonical rights to a given photograph.

Does it matter to them? It could be they're setting themselves up to be realtors for a land-grab.

Without having read the details (I cbf) I assume Kodak is the sole oracle here and the problem is solved by you trusting them to reliably provide accurate data to the chain. Which technically negates the entire point of a blockchain here, but it's a lot more sexy to be using a blockchain than a database.

I don't get the value in the ICO.

Photographer licenses image on KodakONE, receives KodakCOIN as payment. KodakONE uses blockchain to sell and protect the image from theft down the line. KodakONE uses lawyers to DMCA those who don't attribute or pay for the image.

> I don't get the value in the ICO.

I'd replace 'the' with 'any'.

Our ICO is really an IPO. We are selling shares in our company (unregulated security). We have a real business model, good fundamentals. And before the full ICO, we will have a working service.

Cryptocurrency allows us to avoid capital and other controls to fund a venture which would be impossible to fund otherwise.

But most ICOs are blatant scams trying to justify their useless tokens, Kodak included.

So you're trying to get around regulations that you would need to follow if you wanted to do an IPO?

More than that, our business is not legal in the US which is one of our primary markets.

So you’re adding financial crimes to the set of things you’re doing to found your company? Selling securities is a HUGE deal with tons of complex and subtle laws governing it. This isn’t because “governments are stupid” it’s because fraud in the sale of securities is so easy and such a problem. In the US it’s actually the state attorneys general and state regulators who are the most focused on this sort of thing, though the federal government also gets involved. Your jurisdiction maybe be different but this stuff carries across borders. Please, do yourself an incredibly important favor. Run, do not walk, to the nearest large law firm and tell them you’re interested in their services. Then listen to them. It will be expensive but cheaper than being prosecuted for securities fraud, which will happen because it’s a much easier way for the government to shut your company down than going through the front door. Oh, and when the word fraud is tacked onto a corporate indictment, as a good rule of thumb it means the corporate veil is peirced and they can go after your personal assets as well, not just the company’s assets. What you’re doing is a really bad idea unless you have a top law firm behind you telling you it’s ok (and even then you need to be following their instructions to the letter).

P.s. if you get the securities regulatory stuff wrong, even if the governments don’t go after you your investors have almost perfect leverage to force you out of business at any time they wish, turning that 5% investor into a 51% controlling interest, simply because you screwed up your securities offering.

We have consulted with lawyers. None of them are going to give the go-ahead on this project.

Quote from one of them: There is no such things as extrajurisdictional, unless you're on the moon. My reply: If our opsec is good, we may as well be. Tor's latency even makes it feel like being in space.

If our opsec fails and I am unmasked, I will be unhappy at being caught. Successors will recover the system from backup keys and continue on. Small comfort.

You will look back on the decision to do this with regret. I understand you can’t see that now. I’m genuinely sorry for you.

P.s. if you did talk to lawyers about this, your “opsec” is probably already blown or partially blown. Attorney-Client privileges only click in if you’re their client, which you aren’t. They will remember you and connect the dots if and when the time comes for anyone to care who you are.

It certainly is a possibility. I am acutely aware of it every day. It is incredibly high stress. That is why our core team desires to hire people to run the business day-to-day, so we minimize our exposure online and hence reduce possibilities of making opsec mistakes.

Communicating with a lawyer anonymously is not much more difficult than communicating with someone on HN anonymously.

Here is an article discussing some of our opsec, server-oriented: https://medium.com/@PinkDate/pink-app-trading-latency-for-an...

At least I am doing something ethical, to benefit people. This is more than I can say about working on adtech and privacy-invasive data software.

Stop talking about your illegal venture when all doing so gets you is increased risk of capture.

Plus no one really owns anything.


We issue dividends which is more than you can say about SNAP.

Yes I sure hope that before you sell shares of your company you have some product. Why is this even impressive?

Do I get to vote? Do I get dividends? I'm personally a big fan of securities regulation. Are you going to have open financials and reporting? Why is this better?

I am pointing out that not all ICOs are pure-product-free-plays.

Voting, we are uncertain how that would work but very much open to it. Dividends, yes, that is the entire point of us selling equity. This is considerably better than what you get from some publicly traded companies these days!

Open financials: We will have a certificate-transparency-style audit-log of our revenue and we will release limited financials and can discuss concerns if the revenue numbers and profits are too far apart.

This is better because before anonymity tech and cryptocurrencies...It was very difficult to invest in or even run a global escorting platform. This is due to the laws in many countries that we can now work-around. And investors can participate while maintaining their complete privacy. This is difficult with traditional government-regulated equities.

The value would be the army of lawyers to enforce your rights, that you get paid and that you can independently audit them (royalties? if the blockchain is public) ..

In fact you could probably have a movie or music coin to track royalties as well. Artists/producers might find an interest in that. Might be difficult in some sense though. I guess a transaction on the blockchain would unlock some DRM or something depending on the license.

The same problem can be solved if they just used Ethereum

The same problem can be solved if they just used a bit of PHP in 1995.

The killer feature is "lawyers armed with DMCA", not the crypto-themed CRUD app.

Agreed. Essentially, a decentralized ledger does not give you the feature of "enforcing copyrights" for free, unless you have systems built outside of the ledger that does the enforcement. That piece can be built in the meat-world in the form of "an army of lawyers".

The idea of creating a single online market-place that does the enforcement/rights management component in addition to storage/search/sale is interesting.

But that's already a crowded marketplace, and it's not clear to me why Kodak announcing they're going to enter a crowded marketplace would push their stock. Especially given that the announcement is paired with an up-front admission that they're accruing lots of useless technical debt at the beginning of the project.

I would be more inclined to invest in Kodak on the basis of this announcement if it didn't mention cryptocurrency at all.

What value does the blockchain actually bring here? Why is this any different from existing methods of licensing images?

Wow. Attach some Blockchain jargon to your product and get valuation pop. This is getting slightly ridiculous.

I know HN isn't too spiced up about Crypto, but it's important to realize that lots of these "cryptocurrencies" are built atop Ethereum -- that's part of what makes it magical.

This is leveraging Ethereum, to create a currency, to address a market need: photographers getting appropriate renumeration and accreditation for their work.

Picture this: you snap a photo, its hash is on a decentralized public record. If someone uses this photo, you're aware of it and can be rewarded/credited appropriately.

We can scoff at the blockchain-ization of all these applications, or realize that they really do have far-reaching implications. Whether the investors are patient enough to wait for the benefit to become actualized, though, is a whole 'nother matter.

> Picture this: you snap a photo, its hash is on a decentralized public record. If someone uses this photo, you're aware of it and can be rewarded/credited appropriately

How will you be aware of it? And what prevents someone from tweaking one pixel by one bit, changing the hash of the new image?

Kodak has done a lot of research in the last 20 years to create digital watermarks that resist manipulation.

So they wouldn't necessarily naively hash an image file, but they could possibly create a hash from features that are extracted from the image and remain consistent even after manipulation or transformation.

Or they could hash the original bits in the file naively then insert that hash into the original image as a digital watermark that would survive manipulation of the image.

>How will you be aware of it? And what prevents someone from tweaking one pixel by one bit, changing the hash of the new image?

I suspect this would be solved by visually comparing the two images and noticing that they are one in the same. Than you can just see which had their hash published on the block-chain first to see which is the real one.

Yes, but if you can identify an image in that way then you can claim the copyright anyway. Searching for copyright violation is the challenge.

>but if you can identify an image in that way then you can claim the copyright anyway.

Just identifying the images are the same doesn't prove which was the original though. The hashes being publicly available is the key, because you can easily tell which came first.

That would only work if the knockoff image is registered on-chain after the real image. If I'm going to rip off an image, I'm not going to submit it back to the entity that created it.

Hashes don't verify the date that something was created. The blockchain provides a date for the hash, but it provides no guarantee that the hashed item didn't exist long before when it first appeared on chain. If I simply modify the image metadata to say that my knockoff photo was taken at an earlier date and flip some bits, I can still claim that mine is the original and that I didn't submit it to the blockchain when I created it.

I don't think you need a blockchain to do that; just a data base. I don't think that the courts would even need a hash - just evidence that a photo had been made at a time, that it was stored somewhere would be a bonus.

> Picture this: you snap a photo, its hash is on a decentralized public record. If someone uses this photo, you're aware of it and can be rewarded/credited appropriately.

Except if that someone changes a single bit in the photo data (which will result in a completely different hash).

That won't stop you from visually identifying that they are the same, then just looking at the block-chain to see which hash was published first (and thus the real photo).

Unless there's a parallel repository of all the images in a form that's easy to search (some kind of sparse, feature-rich form that's quick CV-match friendly), which isn't the hash, you're going to have a hard time with that initial assessment and enforcement of potential infringers.

That right there could be a pretty expensive system to maintain and it isn't ideal to distributed across a bunch of blockchain participants, it probably has to live in a Kodak server farm somewhere.

But who will determine whether two different images are visually the same?

What’s the point of a decentralized system if a trusted third party decides which images are visually equivalent? Just use that third party to register the image with in the first place, rather than in a blockchain, since that party gets to invalidate your image-hash in the chain anyway (in case your image is deemed visually equivalent to an image earlier in the chain).

I disagree with the characterization of magical. Ethereum is already having issues with scaling (e.g. low amount of TXs per second and non-trivial fees). Plus, everytime you interact with an ERC-20 coin, you have to pay the fee in ether.

I'm not saying these ideas aren't cool, but implementation of them sucks. If you look at the Kodakcoin, it seems the Kodak name is only being used and the company itself isn't involved in the project.

“This is a WENN digital currency,” Kodak said in a statement. “Eastman Kodak Company will not be an issuer of the ICO, will not receive proceeds on the ICO.”

"Today Kodak and WENN Digital, in a licensing partnership, announced the launch of the KODAKOneimage rights management platform and KODAKCoin,... WENN Digital, in partnership with Kodak, is the creator of the KODAKOne platform and the KODAKCoin cryptocurrency." [2]

[1] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/kodak-boards-the-blockchai...

[2] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/kodak-and-wenn-digital-par...

How do you know it's leveraging Ethereum? Link?!

“We are using Ethereum Smart Contracts, but we’re also developing our own proprietary blockchain and will evaluate the optimal solution during development,” Kodak said in a statement." [1]

It seems that the Kodak name is just being used by a company called WENN Digital for this cryptocurrency. More importantly,

“This is a WENN digital currency,” Kodak said in a statement. “Eastman Kodak Company will not be an issuer of the ICO, will not receive proceeds on the ICO.”

[1] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/kodak-boards-the-blockchai...

Immutable append only databases exist without blockchains. Why does this need to be decentralized and distributed?

We've hit Peak Coin.

"I knew I had made the right choice to stay out of cryptocurrencies when my taxi driver launched an ICO." -- Warren Buffet, sometime in the future

You're too late: http://www.peakcoin.io/

"Peakcoin is a peer-to-peer Internet currency that enables instant, near-zero cost payments to anyone in the world."

So there's a coin called Peakcoin. Real lack of awareness in the branding.

I'm really upset Peakcoin isn't a coin meant to quickly transfer money out of failing coin markets.

I'm changing my rap name to MC Blockchain, watch me get a 20 million dollar advance from Sony Music lmfao.

Until someone names their firstborn Block Chain, we're not there yet. Buroku chan is acceptable too.

Yeah there is guy in Russia (well, Crimea) that named his son Bitcoin.

We are there.


If the cycle is:

1 photographer uploads photo;

2 photo consumer (e.g., magazine) pays USD to Kodak for photo usage;

3 Kodak pays KodakCoin to photographer;

Then it looks like a cash grab and the chances of success may be limited because there is no demand driving the price of KodakCoin.

If the cycle is:

1 photographer uploads photo;

2a photo consumer buys KodakCoins from exchange;

2b photo consumer pays KodakCoins to Kodak for photo usage;

3 Kodak pays KodakCoin to photographer.

Then it may be viable because requiring the consumer to purchase coin creates demand for the coin.

Is your stock down? Don't worry, create or invest in a cryptocoin and profit...It's cheaper than a stock buyback.

At the risk of a very low value comment...

The fact that this wasn't called KODAKoin seems like a major oversight.

Too easy to misinterpret as KODA Koin.

Brand guidelines are important especially at a company like Kodak.

They've been there before, with great success: Kodachrome.


>especially at a company like Kodak.

As they have barely anything left, I agree.

Yes, I was thinking the same thing! Only difference is that you name it KodaKKoin to grab the ticker symbol KKK. It will become the latest and hottest meme on the block.

I jokingly told my father-in-law he can get his full retirement now (he retired from Kodak as over 3 decades). I don't think I'll ever look at the Kodak tower again...

The only benefit Kodak has done for it's hometown is foster a entrepreneur hub in Rochester as all the people who once worked for them left to form their own companies.

Is this a landing page that was put together last minute? It seems like it. Look a the teams page, the same two people are the placeholder image for every team member. How serious is Kodak about this really?


Crazy theory, but their stock very steadily this year and a lot of retail investors probably had short positions that they've been holding as a result. Lets say they threw this whole thing together betting that it would cause a bump in value. I'd bet the stair step on the price chart was a cascade of margin calls against all the short sellers because all the brokerages were forced to buy the stock to cover, further raising the price.

hmm it would be an insane reputation risk for the private equity firm behind Kodak, but still very plausible.

The shtick is "efficiently managing the post-licensing process" which basically translates to automatically debiting KODAKCoins instead of issuing DMCA take-downs. Seems like a great way to throw debt collectors onto the whole IP protection mess.

Sounds like hot garbage.

Just waiting for this insane cryptocurrency bubble to pop hard. Riches are being made, but a ton of people are going to end up broke and broken, and the bigger the bubble grows the worse the popping will be.

lol, this is dumb that adding a cryptocurrency would have that profound impact on their stock. Just pay them in USD or some other currency with real-world proven value.

Euphoria and bounded rationality... People see Crypto + Public Traded Company and they lose their shit. Especially true for a company that has struggled so much to compete in the market for the last 15 years...

Yeah, but that wouldn't move their stock price by a single red cent. This is also about profiting from hype. Viewed that way, it's a rip-roaring success. In every other way, it's stupid.

Easiest short opportunity of the year.

"The market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent"

And this "surge" only takes the price back to where it was 3 months ago. Which in itself is less than half of 12 months ago.

It looks like an easy short but you could easily get burnt.

Part of me wants to call this Cryptowashing, but I don't know enough about modern photography. Is Kodak a brand that professionals use to shoot? Would they patent this "integration" so that others can't easily do it in various markets?

Kodak has more or less shifted to focus on printing and packaging. Building it into their printers would let photographers get credit when someone prints one of their photos (authorized or not).

> WENN Digital, in partnership with Kodak, is the creator of the KODAKOne platform and the KODAKCoin cryptocurrency. WENN Digital is an experienced development and operations team with deep expertise in proprietary blockchain development, big data, copyright law, AI-enabled image recognition and post licensing monetization systems. WENN Digital has a strategic relationship with the Deloitte Analytics Institute in Berlin and the Deloitte Blockchain Institute in Munich. <

Kodak is basically licensing their brand to a company that using another company's technology. Sounds like a safe bet /s

Possible use for this not well-served by existing systems: people looking to license photos in places or communities payment processors don't serve or don't serve well can potentially use this.

The microstock sites have spent the last several years driving the value of an image down to the point where you're lucky to get 25 cents (only because it's currently the guaranteed minimum), so it's already in reach of places with low cost of living. Those are the same places where buying stock from people based in already heavily-developed places is complicated by transaction fees and anti-fraud measures.

>Get in on the ground floor

To all those wondering where the value added is, there is none. If you want to know how they solve the oracle problem, they don’t. This is a pyramid scheme, they even use the marketing language word for word.

One need only take a look at Kodak's sales in the last decade to see why this is happening. Just like we got Long Blockchain as a ploy to keep the company stock from being delisted,I'm sure we'll be seeing many more companies that are circling the drain looking to blockchain as a hail mary. This doesn't mean that there aren't legit use cases for the tech, but we're gonna be seeing a lot of shoe horning into blockchain in the coming years by failing companies.

Come on guys, this is really the sign of cryptocurrencies about to crash. "When the paper boy on the street corner is giving stock advice, that's when you sell."

>The initial coin offering...is open to accredited investors

Is this fairly common now? Most of the ICOs I've read about before were basically open to everyone.

Most of the ICOs you’ve read about may well be illegal.

This is SEC rules for ICOs. ICOs that don't have that limit are a) likely scams or at best b) probably a gigantic legal mess.

Has this always been the case (ICOs are only open to the accredited), or does this only apply to ICOs after the SEC's Dec 11th, 2017 statement?

All of them, always, though there was no official guidance for a while most knowledgable people in the space have been saying that for... at least a year.

Of course they got yelled down by the gold-rushers... but it was nevertheless true.

Except US citizens, in a lot of cases.

Reason is they want to avoid SEC Wrath for sketchy shit.

Can somebody explain the value-add of the blockchain portion of this vs just licensing the photo by uploading to a website?

The former makes your stock price double overnight.

It is blindingly obvious we are in a bubble. I find it crazy that everyone cannot see it.

Have ICOs 'jumped the shark'?

Definitely starting to feel that way with solution(s) looking for problems that don't need this complexity, reinvention of the wheel, not invented here, or hype train (FOMO).

Any one remember 'e-company' phase in 1999? Looks like it is all over again. This will lead to speculation in stocks and we all know how that ends.

I'm just waiting to buy some pets.com coin

I'm sure no one will figure out how to claim other peoples photos on the blockchain..

Oh for fuck's sake

Short kodak.

Why? They're using the blockchain for what most people said it was supposed to be used.

I'm actually pleasantly surprised they're moving forward with some innovation and I guess the stock rise reflects that.

OTOH yes, I'm pessimistic they'll actually accomplish something, but who knows? I don't know if the market will discount this soon.

Blockchain might be useful here, sure.

Is that use worth 44% of their stock? Doubtful.

You're overestimating how much of Kodak is actually a viable business. Most of their revenue still comes out of their "Print Systems" (!) division. KODK's latest 10-K is filled with albatross risk statements like "The ability to generate positive operating cash flows will be necessary for Kodak to continue to operate its business."

Honestly if they nail this 44% is small potatoes, this is a dying company with little to no future revenue streams. I'm surprised it didn't go higher.

can't, nobody is lending out kodak shares to short sellers anymore.

Prepare for the blockchain gold rush

It's really sinister of these companies to do ICOs when the coin doesn't give you ownership of the company

> the coin doesn't give you ownership of the company

Why would you give something up when there are pools of dumb money willing to take nothing?

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact