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

21–28 of 28 posts

Re: Introducing Backer: crowd funding for features

#21

Post by MWil »

ericecook wrote: post #19
MWil wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/

how can you cost effectively allow penny donations? Isn't the cost of running the campaign and the cost of accepting credit cards something like $.35/transaction?

Re: Introducing Backer: crowd funding for features

#22

Post by wikwocket »

This is a cool idea. If the creators are watching this channel, might I suggest a few ideas?

- Tweak the campaign page layout to more closely match Kickstarter et al. Big hero graphic/video, packages down the right, extensive sales pitch down the left. This layout is effective, flexible, and more importantly, the de facto standard for crowdfunding. You want people to immediately grok what the campaign is and how it works.

- Allow projects to have screenshots/mockups/videos/slideshow/etc. If you want campaigns to succeed, let people put some sexy graphics up there, maybe even the occasional high-production-value Kickstarer-esque video. Worth a thousand words, and all that.

- If you get critical mass, allow people to browse projects. This will allow potential clients to see all the campaigns out there, and may even build a community of backers. This is one of the real assets of Kickstarter - a community of early adopters, ready to spend cash for fun projects, frequently checking the "popular projects" page.

Re: Introducing Backer: crowd funding for features

#23

Post by ericecook »

MWil wrote: post #21
ericecook wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/

how can you cost effectively allow penny donations? Isn't the cost of running the campaign and the cost of accepting credit cards something like $.35/transaction?

We actually have an account system for users that maintains a balance. So the $0.30/transaction is charged on funds entering the network, but once funds are in the network all transfers between accounts are charged a percentage fee regardless of amount. More info on how our fees will be assessed is available from the help link at the bottom of the page.

Re: Introducing Backer: crowd funding for features

#24

Post by aagha »

LOVE this idea, but I think it needs to be "flipped". I like how they're letting developers test a feature idea/theory, but it'd be great too if they'd let users of products suggest features for software they use and suggest how much they'd be willing to pay for it.

For example, I use (and love!) Workflowy, and I'd pay $20 to have the ability to upload images directly into an outline-item and $50 for an Android client (yes, BTW, yes I would).

These could be considered pledges which the developer could get people to commit to before they build the feature out.

Re: Introducing Backer: crowd funding for features

#25

Post by quadrangle »

This is NOT a new idea. This is just a feature-focused threshold system the same as using Kickstarter. There are also tons of feature focused sites.

Here's the exact same thing already: http://catincan.com/ There's also tons of bounty-style feature systems like http://www.freedomsponsors.org/

I could go on and on. There's no particular reason this variation is going to fail, but it's not new. The only thing notable is the no-fee for Open Source. The Bitcoin focus isn't even remarkable, because there's http://bitcoinstarter.com/

Oh, and the idea-validation is already inherent to crowdfunding. Anyway, I wish people didn't keep wheel reinventing all the time. At least recognize it.

Re: Introducing Backer: crowd funding for features

#27

Post by Stenerson »

This is a good way to show everyone that you have a limited amount of time and resources and that a company can't deliver everything in a reasonable amount of time. We do something similar with our product management process but instead of customers buying features we have internal stakeholders purchase them.

We'll take some percentage of a release and set feature "prices" based on a swag of effort. Then we allocate a percentage of release time as "dollars" to the stakeholders. We just keep track of it manually since it's all internal but we've found the process works nicely for feature prioritization.

Re: Introducing Backer: crowd funding for features

#28

Post by quadrangle »

edoceo wrote: post #26

A site at http://bitkick.org/ has been working in a similar space. Also offering no fees for open source projects.

Gah, why in the heck does that exist? We already have the failed systems: CoFundOS, BountyOSS, Public Software Fund, and many others. There's BountySource (which is a rip-off that charges a fee up-front) and the most viable actually functioning site: freedomsponsors.org

There's tons of others. Open Funding, Bounty Funding, FOSS Factory… and this new thing that this posting is about.

If bounties really worked, we'd see them working by now after tons of attempts and years of trials. And they do work sorta: freedomsponsors.org is the best we've got.

Bitkick.org needs to give up. They're just clutter in an already failing concept. People need to do the research to know what already exists before throwing up another waste-of-time site.

Post reply on HN