I must agree with you. 2800 is absurd, but the point is that a lot of (American) people are willing to pay for it. As we have our own startup in Europe, we can only attend if we have funding (from an American VC :) ) and still it is a *&%^load of money. But I am totally convinced that this conference is very very good for networking purposes and would have loved to attend it.
In Europe we charge a lot less for great conferences (around 500 EUR), so also new up and coming startups can attend. In the end a conference is a great way to connect with people do business and be inspired, but you need the up and coming talents as well.

Looking forward to your findings after the Expo.

But you lost me when you suggest I and my crew should devise a mid-level funding system for in-need start-ups. I am running a web2.0 start-up, yet I’m trying to do this w/o VC funding. The known perils of that path are not unknown. I prefer using open-source tools and following a sustainable organic growth model. If you have a good product you will make enough to cover your minimal expenses and then you can grow from there. If not, maybe you shouldn’t be taking $4M and losing your company to VC’s who never a make a secret of their practicies.

Our industry needs leadership. I don’t know Mr. O’Reilly, but I can say that what he has created in Web 2.0 has been based on an interest to move things forward in a positive way. Creating an effort, event or movement based on a personal dislike of another event seems like a genuine waste of time. Successful movements are always based on a passionate interest in something. I hope and prayer that you and your new group find something unique bring to the table and find a reference that is not “anti” anyone or anything.

If you want to know where effort is most needed in this Web 2.0 revolution it can be found on the funding side. Often during the Web 2.0 conference VC, Start up and consultants all called for a new form of funding partner. Not an Angel - they tend to only do a couple of deals at a time; and not a traditional VC - they only want to give you no less than $10,000,000 bucks and they also want to control the business. What came out of Web 2.0 is a need for a “Middle Bank”, someone that would be willing to fund the 3 guys in a room that only need a $100,000 and only want to part with a small piece of equity. Of the 15 companies that were launched at Web 2.0 only 3 (I believe) had formal VC funding. I met a dozen more in the halls that refused the notion of traditional VCs but hated the fact that they had to go it alone. One company CEO actually “ATTACKED” the VC panel and asked them what their purpose was in this new Web 2.0 world.

If you want to focus your energy on something I would suggest letting Mr. O’Reilly do his thing and you and your crew help move these brilliant start up from the bottom of the food chain to viable.

All the best,

James Harris
CEO, Founder and Chief Storyteller
Elemental Interactive
1545 Peachtree Street NE
Suite 400
Atlanta, GA 30309

I still think it is about people, communicating, collaborating and contributing with really easy to use tools that allows anyone to do something cool and useful without bags of money and vaucous marketing hype - but thats my opinion, and why I want to take back the revolution from big media and big money…

Personally I think this whole 2.0 thing is bunk. Theres no consistency in the definition beyond “what seems cool to a few tech bloggers right at the moment”.