"For startups, having large numbers of investors is bad"
But isn't investment about spreading risk? The more risk you spread, the less founders would have to a) give up in ownership and b) answer to anyone but their own vision.
I think the reason why kiva (and even prosper) works is that risk is spread widely to individuals with common vested interest and enough skin in the game to make it sting but not be completely in-shambles devastating; as opposed to rich people trusting a richer VC to make them foo% return and putting it all in Color.
"The right way to get money from large numbers of people is to sell them your product, like Inpulse did, not to sell them your stock."
What if the product isn't one? What if it's a service like Facebook or (gasp!) Instagram? If you believe in a vision, and you want to contribute to it monetarily -- perhaps even see a return on that money -- why is that bad?
It seems to me that giving up less ownership and having more freedom to answer to their own vision and no one else is not some automagical formula for success.
I have had the freedom to do that with my own websites. In spite of audience interest which led to their creation, they have dismal traffic, are not profitable, and have helped only a paltry few people. Having that kind of "fuck you" decision making autonomy was critical to my ability to get well when doctors claim it cannot be done but it has not been a good basis for a business model. I am currently working on getting feedback to change that. It is clear to me I need more connection, not less, to make a viable business model. Yes, I am leery of the type of connection which can be strangulating but I am also leery of being so autonomous as to be isolated.
I remember someone posting here with an anonymous account who expressed similar concerns because he had $400,000 in savings and was thus free to pursue his vision to his heart's content. He worried he would go broke before he got his act together and created a solid business model simply because he didn't have to before that. "Duke Nukem Forever" comes to mind as well.
Funding a startup is very different than something like Kiva. Startups are new untested theories put into practice. To succeed, you need not just money but quality advice. My parents might be able to provide money to a startup, but they could never provide critical advice around an inflection point and guide me in what to do.
The idea of crowdfunding a startup to "spread risk" focuses on the wrong reason for raising money. You also do not give up less ownership just because you spread the risk farther. You would give us less ownership for equal funding if your backers are more naive, maybe (this assumes that we are not talking about experienced investors calculating the right price for a round and valuing it based on competing internal theories - reasonable considering the average knowledge level of the likely crowdfunders), but that would not serve your company in the best way.
Spreading risk is only one factor. It's like selling a car and only factoring in fuel efficiency and ignoring safety. Having a larger number of people, and this is important, with a megaphone that are like minded that can cause you trouble would be hard to control. While you could say that companies now have a large number of investors (stock owners) and they have little control, they also aren't the age group using the megaphone of the internet to amplify their voice.
Yes, but including a lot of unexperienced investors actually increases the risk of failure. The distraction alone (in time spent managing these investors) might be the death of any startup. Imagine trying to deal with hundreds of mini-vc's all day. Pg's right in the sense that a startup needs just a few focused, knowledgable investors early on.
Something like Kiva might work for a startup, but perhaps more in a donation bootstrap sense. Not as a serious investment.
Comments
"For startups, having large numbers of investors is bad"
But isn't investment about spreading risk? The more risk you spread, the less founders would have to a) give up in ownership and b) answer to anyone but their own vision.
I think the reason why kiva (and even prosper) works is that risk is spread widely to individuals with common vested interest and enough skin in the game to make it sting but not be completely in-shambles devastating; as opposed to rich people trusting a richer VC to make them foo% return and putting it all in Color.
"The right way to get money from large numbers of people is to sell them your product, like Inpulse did, not to sell them your stock."
What if the product isn't one? What if it's a service like Facebook or (gasp!) Instagram? If you believe in a vision, and you want to contribute to it monetarily -- perhaps even see a return on that money -- why is that bad?
It seems to me that giving up less ownership and having more freedom to answer to their own vision and no one else is not some automagical formula for success.
I have had the freedom to do that with my own websites. In spite of audience interest which led to their creation, they have dismal traffic, are not profitable, and have helped only a paltry few people. Having that kind of "fuck you" decision making autonomy was critical to my ability to get well when doctors claim it cannot be done but it has not been a good basis for a business model. I am currently working on getting feedback to change that. It is clear to me I need more connection, not less, to make a viable business model. Yes, I am leery of the type of connection which can be strangulating but I am also leery of being so autonomous as to be isolated.
I remember someone posting here with an anonymous account who expressed similar concerns because he had $400,000 in savings and was thus free to pursue his vision to his heart's content. He worried he would go broke before he got his act together and created a solid business model simply because he didn't have to before that. "Duke Nukem Forever" comes to mind as well.
It's good to spread risk enough that nobody would be badly hurt by a loss, but not more than that.
Funding a startup is very different than something like Kiva. Startups are new untested theories put into practice. To succeed, you need not just money but quality advice. My parents might be able to provide money to a startup, but they could never provide critical advice around an inflection point and guide me in what to do.
The idea of crowdfunding a startup to "spread risk" focuses on the wrong reason for raising money. You also do not give up less ownership just because you spread the risk farther. You would give us less ownership for equal funding if your backers are more naive, maybe (this assumes that we are not talking about experienced investors calculating the right price for a round and valuing it based on competing internal theories - reasonable considering the average knowledge level of the likely crowdfunders), but that would not serve your company in the best way.
"But isn't investment about spreading risk?"
Spreading risk is only one factor. It's like selling a car and only factoring in fuel efficiency and ignoring safety. Having a larger number of people, and this is important, with a megaphone that are like minded that can cause you trouble would be hard to control. While you could say that companies now have a large number of investors (stock owners) and they have little control, they also aren't the age group using the megaphone of the internet to amplify their voice.
Yes, but including a lot of unexperienced investors actually increases the risk of failure. The distraction alone (in time spent managing these investors) might be the death of any startup. Imagine trying to deal with hundreds of mini-vc's all day. Pg's right in the sense that a startup needs just a few focused, knowledgable investors early on.
Something like Kiva might work for a startup, but perhaps more in a donation bootstrap sense. Not as a serious investment.