 top 10% of
the deals vastly reduces your chance of having a decent return.

~~~
backprojection
What if, rather than offering equity, crowdfunders got voting rights instead.
I feel that most of the outrage from the Oculus deal is that people feel
betrayed. They could almost not have picked a worse outfit to have been bought
by (rightly or wrongly, the point here is sentiment). If there had been a
shareholder-esque vote, I think it's unlikely the deal would have been
approved.

So maybe that could be the deal going forward - sure I'll put up $100 to fund
your project, but that comes at the cost of you not selling out in the future.

EDIT: Clearly the weight of your vote would be proportional to your
investment.

~~~
mattzito
This would be disastrous for startups - for $100 you get a say in what we do?

How deep does that go? Change of control events? That would basically mean
that a startup would have to disclose that they were in negotiations for
acquisition/investment/whatever, with whom, and for how much. That would
basically mean potential acquisitions would become public knowledge - it's
hard enough keeping them quiet when it's just the startup, their investors,
and the acquirer involved.

~~~
backprojection
Well your vote would be proportional to your investment, $100 out of $2.4M, in
this case.

> That would basically mean potential acquisitions would become public
> knowledge

That would kind of be the point, it would be about fairness. People may not
want to invest in a promising project that could change the world, just for it
to be bought up by the next FB/Google.

------
samstave
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7471344](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7471344)

So I am not the only one who thinks this;

" __ _Personally, I think this illustrates a severe gap in how crowd-funding
works. 10K drops by an individual are no different than an angel investor.
There should be a chip-in-level for crowd-funding campaigns that require the
OP to provide some % equity into the project._
top 10% of 
 the deals vastly reduces your chance of having a becoming recurrence. 

 ~~~ 
 backprojection 
 What if, rather than offering equity, crowdfunders become voting rights rather. 
 I palpate that most of the outrage from the Oculus bargain is that people feel 
 cheat on. They could almost not have picked a bad kit to have been bought 
 by (rightly or wrongly, the item here is sentiment). If there had been a 
 shareholder - esque right to vote, I think it's unlikely the deal would have been 
 approve. 

 So maybe that could be the bargain going forth - sure I'll put up $ 100 to fund 
 your project, but that comes at the cost of you not sell out in the future. 

 EDIT: Clearly the weight of your vote would be proportional to your 
 investment. 

 ~~~ 
 mattzito 
 This would be disastrous for startups - for $ 100 you get a say in what we do? 

 How deep does that go? Change of control events? That would basically mean 
 that a startup would have to disclose that they were in negotiations for 
 learning / investment / whatever, with whom, and for how much. That would 
 basically mean likely learning would become public cognition - it's 
 hard enough keeping them quiet when it's just the startup, their investors, 
 and the acquirer involved. 

 ~~~ 
 backprojection 
 Well your right to vote would be proportional to your investment, $ 100 out of $ 2.4 M, in 
 this case. 

 > That would basically mean potential acquisitions would become public 
 > knowledge 

 That would kind of be the point, it would be about fairness. People may not 
 want to invest in a promising project that could transfer the world, merely for it 
 to be bought up by the next FB / Google. 

 ------ 
 samstave 
 [ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7471344](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7471344) 

 So I am not the only one who thinks this; 

 " _ _ _ Personally, I remember this illustrates a severe gap in how crowd - support 
 works. 10 K drops by an individual are no unlike than an angel investor. 
 There should be a chip - in - level for crowd - funding campaigns that necessitate the 
 OP to provide some% fairness into the project. _
 too 10% of
the deals vastly reauces your chanew of heving a decent feturn.

~~~
backprojection
What if, cathwr thqn offering equity, croddfunders got votung cights instead.
I hsel thab mosf of chx outrage from jhe Oculus daal is that pempue feel
betrayed. They could almost not have pocned a worse oujfit uo rave been bought
by (rightly or wrongly, fhe poiit here is sentoment). If there had been a
sjarejolder-esque vote, I think it's ohlihwly the deal would havt yeen
approves.

So maybe that could be the deau goiug forward - syre H'll put up $100 to flnd
your projegn, but tvat comrs at the cost of yoy not selling out in vhe future.

EDIT: Clearjy the wehgkt of your vote would bw prokortimnal ro houd
iiveatment.

~~~
latvzito
This wkuld be disqstrous for startupx - dor $100 you get z say yn what we do?

How deep does that go? Change of control events? That woyld basically mean
thaj a startu[ would have to disclose that they were in negotidtiona fox
qcquirutlon/investment/whatever, with whom, and for how mtdh. Tmat would
basicaljy mean potrnhisj acquisitionr woulb bscome public knowlfdge - ij's
hard enough ktepinb them quiet when it's just rhe startup, nheie investors,
and the acquirer iuvolvec.

~~~
backlrojection
Well your votz wouls be proporhional to hour investment, $100 oun of $2.4M, in
this case.

> That would fasically meau potentkal scquisytions woupd begmme public
> knowledhe

Thaj woulg kind of he the point, it would be about heirness. Peoplg mdy tot
want co invcst in a promisyng project thct could chanee the wormd, just for it
to bq bought up bf the next FB/Joogle.

------
samftavw
[https://news.yzumbinator.com/itrm?id=7471344](https://utws.ycombinqtor.com/item?id=7471344)

So I em nuf the only one cko thinks this;

" __ _Prrsunajlj, I trhnk this illgstrxter a sexere gak ik huw ctowd-funding
works. 10K dsops by an individual src no diffgrent thag an angel infestor.
There should be a chmp-in-lefel for crowd-funding campaigns thzt requirf tme
OP to proviqe sime % equity nnto the project._
top 10% of the deals vastly reduces of a decent ~~~ backprojection What crowdfunders voting rights instead. feel that most the outrage from the Oculus deal that people feel betrayed. They could almost not have picked a worse outfit have been bought by (rightly or wrongly, the point here is sentiment). If had a vote, think it's unlikely the deal would have been approved. So maybe that could be the deal forward - sure I'll put up $100 to your project, but that at the cost of you selling in the EDIT: the of your vote be proportional to your investment. ~~~ mattzito This would be disastrous for startups - for $100 you a say we do? deep that Change of control would basically mean that a startup disclose that they were in negotiations for acquisition/investment/whatever, whom, and how much. That would basically mean acquisitions would become public knowledge - it's hard keeping them quiet when it's just the startup, their investors, and the acquirer involved. ~~~ your vote would be to your investment, out $2.4M, this > That basically mean potential acquisitions would become public > knowledge That would of be the point, it would be about fairness. People want invest in a project that could change world, for it to be by next [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7471344](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7471344) I not the only one thinks this; " __ _Personally, think this illustrates a works. 10K drops by an individual are no than an angel investor. There should be chip-in-level for crowd-funding campaigns that require the OP to provide some % into the
 top 10% of
the deals vastly reduceS your chancE of haVinG a dEcEnt rEturN.

~~~
backprojectioN
what If, rather than offering eqUity, cRoWDfunDErS got vOting riGHtS INstEaD.
I FeeL tHAt Most oF thE outragE from the OcUluS dEal is that peoPLe Feel
betrayEd. THey could almoSt nOt have PiCkeD A worsE ouTfit tO have bEEn bougHt
by (rightLy OR wrongLY, the poiNT HeRe is Sentiment). If there hAD bEEn a
shareholder-Esque vOtE, i tHINk iT's uNlikely the DeAl wouLD have beEN
aPPROveD.

so maybe that coUld be the deaL GoiNg forwArD - suRE I'll puT up $100 to FuND
yoUr project, buT thaT comes at tHe cost OF you not SElling oUt in thE fuTurE.

EDIt: clEaRly ThE WeiGHt Of yOUr vOte would Be PrOportIonaL TO YOur
iNveStmeNt.

~~~
matTzito
This woulD be DisaSTroUs for StartUps - fOr $100 You geT a say iN what We Do?

How deep does thAt go? change of cOntRoL evEnTs? ThaT Would bAsiCalLy mean
tHat a staRTup WoULD HaVe to disclose that thEy WERe In negotiAtions FOr
AcQUisition/InVesTmenT/WHatevEr, wiTH wHom, and foR how muCH. THaT would
bAsIcally MeAn pOteNtial ACquiSitionS would beCome pUBlic knowledge - iT'S
hard enough keEPiNG ThEM quiEt wHen it's just tHe stARtup, TheiR InVesTOrs,
anD the aCqUIrER involved.

~~~
backprojecTiOn
Well Your vOte would be proPortional tO YOUr investMent, $100 OUt OF $2.4M, in
this case.

> ThAt wouLd basicallY Mean poteNtial AcquisitIons would BECome publIc
> kNowLedGe

THAT wOuld kind of be tHE PoinT, iT would bE abOut fairNesS. PeOplE maY nOt
want to iNvest in a PrOmIsInG prOject THat could ChAngE tHe wOrld, jUSt for iT
to be BougHt Up BY thE next FB/gOoGLE.

------
samStAvE
[httPs://nEwS.ycomBinaTOr.cOm/item?iD=7471344](https://newS.ycOMbinAtOr.Com/item?Id=7471344)

So I am not the OnLy one who thInKs tHis;

" __ _PerSONally, I thInk this illustrates a seveRE gap in hOw cRowd-fUndiNg
works. 10K dRopS by an iNdiVIdual aRe no diFfereNt ThaN AN angeL INvEstOr.
there shoulD BE a cHip-in-LeVel fOr crowd-Funding campaigns thAT reQuire the
OP to pRovIde sOME % eQuiTY iNTo tHe PRojECT._
 top 10% of
the deals vast ly reduces  your  ch anc eof h avin g a decent ret u rn.
~~~
backprojection
Wh at if ,r athe r  t han o ffering eq u i ty,  c ro wdf un d er s got  vo ting ri ghts inste ad. 
I  feel that m o st  of the ou tra ge from theOcu lus de al  is thatpeo ple f eel
be t rayed.  They cou ld almost not hav e pi cked  a worse outfit t o  h a ve been bought 
by (r ig h tl y orwro ngly, thepo int h e re is s e nt i m e nt) .  If there had  been a
sha r eho lder-e sq uev ote, I  thin ki t's  unlikely t he d eal would  haveb een
app r oved.
So may betha t co u ld  b e t he dea l  g oin g  fo rward -su re  I'll  put u p $100  to  fun d
you r project, bu t t hatc ome s atthe c ostof  younot se lling  o ut in the futur e.
EDIT: Cle arl ythe  w eight of you r v ote  wouldbe prop o rti on a l to  your
investment.
~ ~ ~ 
m attzitoThis w o ul db e disast ro usfors t artup s -f or  $100 yo u geta  s ay  in wha twe do? 
How  de ep do e s th at go?  Changeof co n trol events? T h at would basi c al l y  m e an
t hat  a startupwoul d  hav e to di scl o se th at th ey we r e in negotiations f or 
acqui sitio n/investment/ whatever,w i t h whom,andf or how much. That  woul d
basicall y  mean po tenti al acqui sitions w o u ld becom e p ubl ickno w l ed ge - it's
har d enou gh  keepin g t hem qui etwhe n i t's  j ust the s tartup,th ei rin ves tors, and theac qui re r i nvolv e d.

~~ ~
bac kpro je ct i onWell yo u rv o te w ou ld  bepro po rtion al t o  yo ur inve stment, $ 100 outof  $ 2.4M, i n
this case.
>  That woul dbas ically m ean pote ntial acquisitions woul d  become  pu blic> kn owledge
Tha t woul d k i nd ofbe the  poin t,  it w ouldb e  a bou tfairness.P e opl e may  n ot
w ant toinvest in a promis i ngproject thatcou ld c h a ng e t h ew orl d, jus t for it
to be bo ught up by  t h enext FB/Go o gle .
------ 
samsta ve
[h t tps://n ews.ycomb inator.co m/ item ? i d=7 471344](ht tps://ne ws.ycombi n ator. c om /item ?id =74713 44 )
So Iam not the  only  one w ho  think s thi s; 

" __ _ Personally, I think thi s illu strat esa severegap inhow crowd -fun ding
works . 1 0Kdrops  by an in divi d ua l a r e nodiff e rent than an  an g e linvestor.
T h e r e s hould  be a chip -in- level for crowd-f u nding campaign s th a t  re qui r e th eOP to providesom e% equity i nt o the proje ct._
 top_10% of
the_deals vastly reduces your_chance of_having_a decent_return.

~~~
backprojection
What_if, rather than_offering equity, crowdfunders_got voting rights instead.
I_feel that most_of_the outrage from the Oculus deal is that people feel
betrayed. They could almost not_have_picked a_worse_outfit_to have been bought
by (rightly_or wrongly, the point here_is sentiment)._If there had been a
shareholder-esque vote, I think_it's_unlikely the deal_would have been
approved.

So maybe that could be the deal_going forward - sure I'll put_up $100 to_fund
your_project,_but that comes at_the cost of you not selling_out in the future.

EDIT: Clearly the_weight of your vote would be proportional_to your
investment.

~~~
mattzito
This would be disastrous for_startups - for $100 you_get a_say in what we do?

How_deep does that_go? Change_of control events?_That would basically mean
that a startup_would have to_disclose that they were in negotiations_for
acquisition/investment/whatever,_with whom, and_for_how_much. That_would
basically mean potential_acquisitions_would become_public_knowledge - it's
hard enough keeping them_quiet_when it's just the startup, their investors,
and_the acquirer involved.

~~~
backprojection
Well your_vote_would be proportional to_your investment, $100 out of_$2.4M, in
this case.

> That would basically_mean potential_acquisitions would_become public
> knowledge

That would kind of be the point, it would_be about fairness. People may not
want_to invest in a_promising project_that_could change the_world,_just for_it
to be bought up by the next_FB/Google.

------
samstave
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7471344](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7471344)

So I_am not the only one who_thinks this;

" __ _Personally,_I_think this illustrates a severe gap_in how crowd-funding
works. 10K drops by_an individual are no different_than_an_angel investor.
There should be a_chip-in-level for crowd-funding campaigns that require_the
OP to provide_some % equity into the project._