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

Fundable comes to an ugly end

fundable.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 86 posts

Re: Fundable comes to an ugly end

#61

Post by shykes »

ars wrote: post #21
megaduck wrote: post #9

As my cofounder and I are currently finalizing our own incorporation, I look at Fundable's sad situation and think, "Wow. What if that were us? Is there any way we can avoid ever having that kind of situation with a clever bit of legalese?" Unfortunately, I suspect the answer is "no". As soon as you give one partner the ability to eject the other (for whatever reason), you open the door for all sorts of abuse. Beside…

I think you have two ways of dealing with it: 51/49 split, or have 3 partners. Both methods ensure you never end up with a stalemate.

With 3 partners, the typical nightmare scenario is that one partner is marginalized or kicked out by the 2 others. I've seen that happen and it's ugly.

Re: Fundable comes to an ugly end

#62

Post by edw519 »

In spite of all the issues this case raises, only one popped out at me...

Team of 2: 1 programmer + 1 non-programmer = bad combination.

Maybe I'm a little old fashioned, but in a 2 person web startup, both should be programmers. I'm certainly not suggesting that this is what caused this situation, but it sure didn't help...

Since only one programmed, the probability of future difficulties increased dramatically, and once they did occur, he was the only one who could have dealt with them. A team approach probably would have been much better for technical problems, both preventing them and handling them.

Re: Fundable comes to an ugly end

#63

Post by jacquesm »

edw519 wrote: post #62

In spite of all the issues this case raises, only one popped out at me... Team of 2: 1 programmer + 1 non-programmer = bad combination. Maybe I'm a little old fashioned, but in a 2 person web startup, both should be programmers. I'm certainly not suggesting that this is what caused this situation, but it sure didn't help... Since only one programmed, the probability of future difficulties increased dramatically, and…

Agreed, in general only one programmer is a mistake anyway. You need someone to keep you sharp and to bounce stuff of when you're stuck, or to work together on the tough bits to make sure they come out right (APIs and things like that).

Re: Fundable comes to an ugly end

#64

Post by jacquesm »

pvg wrote: post #44
eplanit wrote: post #19

I'm torn between 'sad' and 'pathetic'. The word 'immaturity' applies, without question or hesitation.

No need to be torn, it's both (and more). Obviously, it's sad when your venture fails; writing a long rambling missive (in the third person) about how you called your partner's parents and how everyone should sue your partner, though, is pathetic. Could have simply said the company is shutting down, that one of the founders is no longer able to work on it and provided a contact address for people who need to recover…

Whatever happens, you don't air your dirty laundry in public. That makes all of you 'untouchable' for any future ventures.

I understand that this guy needed to blow off steam, but this is basically a trial-by-media attempt and a way to get back at someone. If you can't part well when things don't work you are not made for the startup scene.

Re: Fundable comes to an ugly end

#65

Post by justinhj »

billclerico wrote: post #37
justinhj wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only if they act illegally or irresponsibly, right? Otherwise only assets of the corporation are at risk.

holding customer funds without complying with banking laws is a federal crime - making them liable personally

you should tell paypal about that

Re: Fundable comes to an ugly end

#66

Post by mikeryan »

edw519 wrote: post #62

In spite of all the issues this case raises, only one popped out at me... Team of 2: 1 programmer + 1 non-programmer = bad combination. Maybe I'm a little old fashioned, but in a 2 person web startup, both should be programmers. I'm certainly not suggesting that this is what caused this situation, but it sure didn't help... Since only one programmed, the probability of future difficulties increased dramatically, and…

This depends entirely on the business you are trying to build. Trying to generalize this into 2 people == 2 programmers == success isn't going to work in a vast majority of situations. Who's going to do business development if you have corporate clients? Who's going to do visual design?(programmers? Yikes!) Who's going to deal with investors and press?

This product didn't fail because there was only one programmer (heck I'm pretty sure digg started with obyrne and Kevin Rose). Fundable failed because it poorly managed itself.

Re: Fundable comes to an ugly end

#68

Post by reidman »

Confusion wrote: post #54
reidman wrote: post #3

Pretty one-sided, but I suppose a domain name can only belong to one side of any argument. For the uninitiated, Fundable was a site where you could input a dollar amount and accept donations towards that 'goal'. If the goal wasn't reached within a certain time period, the money was returned to the individual donors. If the goal was reached, the money was released to whoever initiated the campaign, minus a hefty 7% co…

Do I understand correctly that https://tipit.to/ might be a (cheaper) alternative? (Disclaimer: I am in no way affiliated to this site, apart from liking a Java project the owner works on)

I don't think so -- Fundable was targeted toward much larger transactions ($5k+ campaigns weren't rare, iirc) and specifically set up to 'self destruct' if the goal wasn't met.

So for example, if you had a small neighborhood looking to fund the purchase of a $5,000 water well and they only raised $4,000, everyone who donated was supposed to get their money back.

(Also, TipIT doesn't seem to suck.)

Post reply on HN