Who owns Bluesky?
Uncategorized
25
Posts
10
Posters
0
Views
-
Who owns Bluesky?
The curious mystery of the Bluesky Series B funding round.
Did it happen?
If you look at pitchbook (https://pitchbook.com/profiles/company/484831-81) it seems Bluesky closed a whopping $97 million funding round resulting in a $700M valuation in January 2025. VCpedia lists Greylock, alumni ventures and Skyseed as participants (https://vcpedia.com/rounds/5195).
The interesting thing is there are no press releases or other media coverage confirming this financing.
Read on...
1/2
-
Who owns Bluesky?
The curious mystery of the Bluesky Series B funding round.
Did it happen?
If you look at pitchbook (https://pitchbook.com/profiles/company/484831-81) it seems Bluesky closed a whopping $97 million funding round resulting in a $700M valuation in January 2025. VCpedia lists Greylock, alumni ventures and Skyseed as participants (https://vcpedia.com/rounds/5195).
The interesting thing is there are no press releases or other media coverage confirming this financing.
Read on...
1/2
Other resources like Cruchbase (https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/bluesky-514d) and Cbinsights (https://www.cbinsights.com/company/bluesky-8/financials) don't include a Series B round and have total invested capital at $23M ($8M seed and $15M series A).
A Business Insider article on January 7, 2025 reports Bluesky was close to closing another round lead by Bain Capital (https://www.businessinsider.com/x-competitor-bluesky-valuation-new-funding-round-2025-1?op=1), but there was never any follow up.
So how much money has been invested in Bluesky, and by whom?
It remains a mystery.
2/2
-
Other resources like Cruchbase (https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/bluesky-514d) and Cbinsights (https://www.cbinsights.com/company/bluesky-8/financials) don't include a Series B round and have total invested capital at $23M ($8M seed and $15M series A).
A Business Insider article on January 7, 2025 reports Bluesky was close to closing another round lead by Bain Capital (https://www.businessinsider.com/x-competitor-bluesky-valuation-new-funding-round-2025-1?op=1), but there was never any follow up.
So how much money has been invested in Bluesky, and by whom?
It remains a mystery.
2/2
@mastodonmigration I know who *doesn't* own BlueSky. Its users and communities.
-
Who owns Bluesky?
The curious mystery of the Bluesky Series B funding round.
Did it happen?
If you look at pitchbook (https://pitchbook.com/profiles/company/484831-81) it seems Bluesky closed a whopping $97 million funding round resulting in a $700M valuation in January 2025. VCpedia lists Greylock, alumni ventures and Skyseed as participants (https://vcpedia.com/rounds/5195).
The interesting thing is there are no press releases or other media coverage confirming this financing.
Read on...
1/2
@mastodonmigration @noracodes At least Skyseed seems to have some press, but nothing about their latest round?
-
@mastodonmigration @noracodes At least Skyseed seems to have some press, but nothing about their latest round?
Saw that. Makes the mystery even more mysterious.
-
Who owns Bluesky?
The curious mystery of the Bluesky Series B funding round.
Did it happen?
If you look at pitchbook (https://pitchbook.com/profiles/company/484831-81) it seems Bluesky closed a whopping $97 million funding round resulting in a $700M valuation in January 2025. VCpedia lists Greylock, alumni ventures and Skyseed as participants (https://vcpedia.com/rounds/5195).
The interesting thing is there are no press releases or other media coverage confirming this financing.
Read on...
1/2
@mastodonmigration I like to compare mastodon vs bluesky like gsm vs CDMA.
CDMA was owned by one company, gsm was not. Same with bluesky vs mastodon.
CDMA and bluesky are "open" (note the quotes). GSM and Mastodon are truly open (note the no quotes).
CDMA ended up dying after nobody wanted to be a prisoner to Qualcomm. Bluesky is no different. -
@mastodonmigration I like to compare mastodon vs bluesky like gsm vs CDMA.
CDMA was owned by one company, gsm was not. Same with bluesky vs mastodon.
CDMA and bluesky are "open" (note the quotes). GSM and Mastodon are truly open (note the no quotes).
CDMA ended up dying after nobody wanted to be a prisoner to Qualcomm. Bluesky is no different. -
@mastodonmigration @blackbird I wonder what decentralized service is more like LaserDisc.
-
@mastodonmigration I know who *doesn't* own BlueSky. Its users and communities.
@mousey You're right — Bluesky's users and communities don't own it. But does that matter? No, the protocol matters. It's open. Even Bluesky itself is open. You can fork it, and the fork is definitely yours. You can create your own app. You can also take your Bluesky data and self-host it on your home server. What's wrong with that?
-
@mousey You're right — Bluesky's users and communities don't own it. But does that matter? No, the protocol matters. It's open. Even Bluesky itself is open. You can fork it, and the fork is definitely yours. You can create your own app. You can also take your Bluesky data and self-host it on your home server. What's wrong with that?
@rzelnik @mousey Of course it matters. Money drives development and they also have practically total control of the infrastructure so those who own it can choose what direction it takes.
They've already made choices that have resulted in lots of people becoming unsatisfied with what they're doing. Even the openness is not something you can necessarily rely on being there indefinitely as long as they have this level of control. They only support "open core" so might add proprietary parts.
-
@rzelnik @mousey Of course it matters. Money drives development and they also have practically total control of the infrastructure so those who own it can choose what direction it takes.
They've already made choices that have resulted in lots of people becoming unsatisfied with what they're doing. Even the openness is not something you can necessarily rely on being there indefinitely as long as they have this level of control. They only support "open core" so might add proprietary parts.
@ikuturso @mousey If anyone can run their own server, how do they control the infrastructure? Actually, one company does develop both the application and the protocol. That is controversial. Protocol development should be separated from the application and carried out by an independent non-profit organisation. I hope they will do it.
-
@ikuturso @mousey If anyone can run their own server, how do they control the infrastructure? Actually, one company does develop both the application and the protocol. That is controversial. Protocol development should be separated from the application and carried out by an independent non-profit organisation. I hope they will do it.
@rzelnik @mousey Right and also on a social network merely self-hosting does not let you escape all influence if someone else is hosting for 99% of the users you could reach.
All servers are not created equal in their architecture. Running just a PDS (which seems to be the thing mostly being advocated) is trivially easy but has fairly limited benefits mainly related to not being affected by third parties disappearing. Very few people could afford running an AppView OTOH.
-
@rzelnik @mousey Right and also on a social network merely self-hosting does not let you escape all influence if someone else is hosting for 99% of the users you could reach.
All servers are not created equal in their architecture. Running just a PDS (which seems to be the thing mostly being advocated) is trivially easy but has fairly limited benefits mainly related to not being affected by third parties disappearing. Very few people could afford running an AppView OTOH.
@ikuturso @mousey Bluesky is hosting 99% of users because it started as a centralised project that is gradually being handed over to the community. However, this centralisation will not be the case when more providers and communities start to offer AT-proto related services. Have you heard of the Eurosky project, for example? Check it:
https://www.eurosky.tech/ -
@mousey You're right — Bluesky's users and communities don't own it. But does that matter? No, the protocol matters. It's open. Even Bluesky itself is open. You can fork it, and the fork is definitely yours. You can create your own app. You can also take your Bluesky data and self-host it on your home server. What's wrong with that?
-
@mastodonmigration @blackbird I wonder what decentralized service is more like LaserDisc.
-
@ikuturso @mousey Bluesky is hosting 99% of users because it started as a centralised project that is gradually being handed over to the community. However, this centralisation will not be the case when more providers and communities start to offer AT-proto related services. Have you heard of the Eurosky project, for example? Check it:
https://www.eurosky.tech/@rzelnik @mousey I see limited evidence that they're really all that interested in handing it off. There's a world of difference between what they've been doing and how Mastodon was free to host by anyone right on the day it got first released.
Even now I don't see them push people to register anywhere other than their official infra much and they've even added components that don't work with third parties to it.
I don't think this works very well if you just leave it as an afterthought.
-
@ikuturso @mousey Bluesky is hosting 99% of users because it started as a centralised project that is gradually being handed over to the community. However, this centralisation will not be the case when more providers and communities start to offer AT-proto related services. Have you heard of the Eurosky project, for example? Check it:
https://www.eurosky.tech/ -
@rzelnik @mousey I see limited evidence that they're really all that interested in handing it off. There's a world of difference between what they've been doing and how Mastodon was free to host by anyone right on the day it got first released.
Even now I don't see them push people to register anywhere other than their official infra much and they've even added components that don't work with third parties to it.
I don't think this works very well if you just leave it as an afterthought.
@ikuturso @mousey Yes, Mastodon (and the entire Fediverse) takes a completely different approach. It's a bottom-up movement, whereas Bluesky/ATmosphere is more of a top-down approach with the gradual release of participation capabilities. The Bluesky project was originally initiated by Jack Dorsey at Twitter as an intended replacement for the previous centralised architecture.
-
@mousey You're right — Bluesky's users and communities don't own it. But does that matter? No, the protocol matters. It's open. Even Bluesky itself is open. You can fork it, and the fork is definitely yours. You can create your own app. You can also take your Bluesky data and self-host it on your home server. What's wrong with that?
@rzelnik Therein lies the misunderstanding.
people's DATA is more important than platform or protocol.
In fact, ATProto is a decentralized-centralized protocol. So even if you set up your own servers, the *data* goes through bluesky. That's how it's made. They didn't take "A different approach" than ActivityPub, they came late, and are still trying to reach parity.
ActivityPub is a non-cenatralized federated protocol.
They are not the same. Billionaires fund BlueSky. Fedi is up to us.
-
@rzelnik Therein lies the misunderstanding.
people's DATA is more important than platform or protocol.
In fact, ATProto is a decentralized-centralized protocol. So even if you set up your own servers, the *data* goes through bluesky. That's how it's made. They didn't take "A different approach" than ActivityPub, they came late, and are still trying to reach parity.
ActivityPub is a non-cenatralized federated protocol.
They are not the same. Billionaires fund BlueSky. Fedi is up to us.
@mousey Yes, it's very likely that I'll use Bluesky to access the ATproto network, which is the most likely option nowadays. When I create my own app, lexicon, PDS, AppView, etc., the data doesn't necessarily go through Bluesky. It can, as it's open data, but it doesn't have to. If users and app creators get the impression that Bluesky is somehow exploiting their interactions, it's not so difficult to bypass Bluesky and even fork the protocol. Am I right?
Feed RSS
Gli ultimi otto messaggi ricevuti dalla Federazione
-
-
@macfranc @astronomia ricordate di acquistare solo costosissime auto elettriche per combattere l'inquinamento.
-
-
@virtuous_sloth @scottjenson actually, it doesn't separate the composition of private mentions from other types of posts. It's an option on the drop down. If you forget to change the option, your PM goes out with the default visibility -- often public!
-
@evan @scottjenson
phanpy does a great job
-
I think some people were using PMs for potentially sensitive info (addresses, Venmo, etc.), and having them slightly more secure puts people at ease.
What about standard public-key stuff, dropping a short public key in a metadata field, keeping the private key on the endpoint or in the client?
-
@scottjenson not at all critical.
Hint: you could re-run this as a poll, for the question.
-
@evan the already improved UX looks good, to me.
When drafting a reply to a public toot, the word 'Public' is prominent (first screenshot).
When drafting a mention, the separation is clear (second shot).
Without being blasé about privacy: if a person accidentally publishes in either of those contexts, it's human error.
