Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Introducing Backer: crowd funding for features

backer.app.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 28 posts

Re: Introducing Backer: crowd funding for features

#11

Post by MWil »

dalton wrote: post #9
MWil wrote: post #6

I understand the appeal of a single page "corresponds to a single feature" but is there a way to display the status of a full project? Let's say I have UmbrellaApp, a website which offers a service. I create a Backer page for a mobile app, and 4 more Backer pages for optional features which I'd be interested in building into both the website and the mobile app but I'd want to gauge interest individually before commit…

My instinct is that trying to run multiple Backers at the same time might make it harder for any one of them to succeed, and thus it might make sense to run them serially. We are certainly open to trying things like this out, and sharing the best practices of what works best with the public.

I'd like to see it attempted (or am interested in being the guinea pig if need be) of building almost an entire service the way I described. It works for the project I'm thinking of because I work with the law and it's jurisdictional and categorical. To devote finite resources to a different area of the law or different jurisdiction might not be worth it if there is such demonstrable demand to expand features within an area/jx already present. For example, I could build a product for attorneys and law students in my home state that focuses on a small area of law and never expand outside of that area/jx - if those customers/clients are gracious enough that they can effectively block any attempt to expand elsewhere, why wouldn't I reward them? Conversely, if another area or jx can steal my attention with their efforts...

Sure, you could use surveys and contact forms but even if the amount you're raising is not correlated to the development cost, you're awarding your most valuable customers first - those that are willing to put their money where their mouth is. For example, if every major feature, regardless of actual or estimated cost, had a $2000 Backer page - the order in which the Backer succeeds would determine priorities.

Obviously, I'm just spit-balling b/c I just saw this but it's got me thinking. I wouldn't want it to look like a nickel-and-dime operation but one where it actually makes sense to use this method. I think the law lends itself well in that situation.

Re: Introducing Backer: crowd funding for features

#12

Post by opendomain »

steveklabnik wrote: post #3

We just had great success trying this idea out. It was via CrowdTilt, not Backer, but our customers pre-paid over $50k for push-to-cards: http://blog.balancedpayments.com/push-to-cards/ I'm also really excited about open source projects self-funding via this. Or at least, paying for someone to do design, write documentation, or all the other non-development expenses. Think NPM raising that money to keep the service g…

I think what you did is the best way to build features for paid apps - by giving a discount or other advantage by pre-paying. For open source projects, it makes sence for a donation to gauge interest, but I think I would still like a "contribution" or other way to recognize people that paid for features.

Re: Introducing Backer: crowd funding for features

#14

Post by dalton »

muratmutlu wrote: post #13

Great idea, can the page be branded under my startups name or is it app.net?

I think we are going to offer it under backer.app.net/project-name. It's something worth testing I think.

fwiw I have personally witnessed a significant percentage of consumers accusing a crowdfunding project of being a "scam" if it is hosted on their own domain rather than an impartial 3rd party like Kickstarter. I think that is one of the reasons consumers like Kickstarter vs self-hosted crowdfunding.

Additionally, in the Bitcoin use-case, if you have a page on your subdomain powered by Backer that accept Bitcoin, consumers will be confused and angrily say that you already accept Bitcoin because that page exists. That is also something we learned first-hand.

Re: Introducing Backer: crowd funding for features

#15

Post by lifeisstillgood »

It's a nice idea, but I think the "can I get my paying customers to visit kickstarter" is the smallest and least useful of the possible markets.

Kickstarter is attractive because it serves people who do not (yet) have paying customers and so is audience building as well as validation. This requires an existing audience (afaik) so it's less vital.

the area I think this will truly shine is in corporate budget allocation. A backer for internally committing budgetary funds to new features will allow a huge range of options and voting preferences to be put within a company - hell it's pretty much the first step on the road to democracy within corporations (franchise for the owners of budgets)

this is actually one of those ideas I would want to actually do - it's got legs. anyone else got any thoughts?

Re: Introducing Backer: crowd funding for features

#16

Post by muratmutlu »

dalton wrote: post #14
muratmutlu wrote: post #13

Great idea, can the page be branded under my startups name or is it app.net?

I think we are going to offer it under backer.app.net/project-name. It's something worth testing I think. fwiw I have personally witnessed a significant percentage of consumers accusing a crowdfunding project of being a "scam" if it is hosted on their own domain rather than an impartial 3rd party like Kickstarter. I think that is one of the reasons consumers like Kickstarter vs self-hosted crowdfunding. Additionally,…

Ah I see, although wouldn't backers mostly be our users or people who are familiar with our product if it was on our own site funding features?

I think we'd go with credit card option as that's what we plan to use on the site

Either way it's awesome idea congrats on launching

Re: Introducing Backer: crowd funding for features

#18

Post by volkk »

this is rather funny because a friend and i were seriously contemplating building this exact thing for a while. unfortunately we deemed it pointless to build because there would just be too many various ramifications when dealing with people attempting to fund other companies.

e.g -- imagine a company like.....amazon gets some "request" to add a feature. say the feature is to add bitcoin as their payments (to use one of your examples from the site). okay, that is a large integration that costs lots of money and a lot of decision making. it will also take quite some time, naturally. it will bounce around the higher ups, then time will be prioritized for it, and a team will be assigned to work on this. thats the ideal situation, correct? except what will really happen is that the higher ups will hear about say....5k people that want bitcoin accepted that have donated maybe...10k-15k total for this cause. they have about 250 other things on their internal company pipeline that are probably higher priority. they will simply throw this request out. it's just too naive to think companies will adhere to the whims of the public. I can perhaps see small indie companies doing this but even then, there will be plenty of hurdles such as "well technically this is impossible in its current state, but we can work on something very similar except now we have $15k to work on this but the similar thing is a bit easier to do and slightly different, so now we need a new campaign to re calculate the costs?" -- it's a great idea, but unless you have some genius way to cope with company internals, i don't see a bright future for this product, unfortunately.

Re: Introducing Backer: crowd funding for features

#19

Post by ericecook »

MWil wrote: post #11
dalton wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My instinct is that trying to run multiple Backers at the same time might make it harder for any one of them to succeed, and thus it might make sense to run them serially. We are certainly open to trying things like this out, and sharing the best practices of what works best with the public.

I'd like to see it attempted (or am interested in being the guinea pig if need be) of building almost an entire service the way I described. It works for the project I'm thinking of because I work with the law and it's jurisdictional and categorical. To devote finite resources to a different area of the law or different jurisdiction might not be worth it if there is such demonstrable demand to expand features within…

I'm not sure if this is quite what you're looking for, but I've been working on developing a service that tries to solve this kind of problem. It's project centric with crowdfunding for different "problems" on the project. We've got a coming soon page up now if you'd be interested in taking a look at it, feedback is always welcomed. We should be posting to HackerNews officially in a few days.

http://crowdlink.io/

Re: Introducing Backer: crowd funding for features

#20

Post by samatman »

This is a good idea. Not, necessarily, a great one; I feel more can be done with crytocurrency platforms than attaching them to a Kickstarter.

I have questions, but only one that's pressing. It appears that Backer pays out when the project is complete. Given that they accept Bitcoin, what happens if Bitcoin substantially depreciates or appreciates in value in the interim? Is the house floating both risks, or either?

Post reply on HN