11–20 of 120 posts
A lot of the people using Kickstarter to raise capital for their projects appear out of their depth, if not in the first instance, certainly when their project takes off and they end up raising many times what they anticipated.
Notwithstanding all the hype and legitimate positives of crowd sourcing, this is the very real negative side. Kickstarter gives unfettered access to funds, which more often than not is required by a given project, and they indemnify themselves and further remove themselves from the funding transactions (a legal requisite for anyone not wanting to be tied up in litigation for the rest of their known life). Perhaps the…
This seems insane that Kickstarter doesn't have a policy on this. Guess all investments have some level of 'risk' to them.
This seems insane that Kickstarter doesn't have a policy on this. Guess all investments have some level of 'risk' to them.
And what if instead of disappearing, the company had simply tried (in good faith) and failed to deliver. The users would still be pissed off because they felt like they paid for something and the company didn't deliver.
The big problem I see with Kickstarter is that both users & companies see it like a pre-order service. Too often it's used this way and people end up pissed. In the eyes of the backers, they aren't paying to see something new created. They're pre-ordering a product they think would be cool.
If anything, kickstarter should enforce some sort of limits for perks to curb this sort of abuse.
If a project looks promising, more people are likely to pledge for it. But if Cryptrade thought $12K was enough to develop their project, that's probably all they actually needed. And $12K is both less tempting for Cryptrade to just disappear and less penalizing to everyone who pledged for the project.
At the very least it seems like it shouldn't be that challenging for them to at least be prepared to aggressively deal with flat-out fraud.
This seems insane that Kickstarter doesn't have a policy on this. Guess all investments have some level of 'risk' to them.
As far as I can tell, they basically want backers to be comfortable with 100% risk. I think this is a reasonable position.
The project has reached a $196K funding while the initial goal was "only" $12K. Maybe Kickstarter should limit the amount of money to this initial goal, or at least to twice the amount of this goal. If a project looks promising, more people are likely to pledge for it. But if Cryptrade thought $12K was enough to develop their project, that's probably all they actually needed. And $12K is both less tempting for Cryptr…
Notwithstanding all the hype and legitimate positives of crowd sourcing, this is the very real negative side. Kickstarter gives unfettered access to funds, which more often than not is required by a given project, and they indemnify themselves and further remove themselves from the funding transactions (a legal requisite for anyone not wanting to be tied up in litigation for the rest of their known life). Perhaps the…
On the downside, if this keeps happening, users aren't going to back as many projects, and fewer projects will be successfully funded (which may or may not actually be a bad thing).