SarksusATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered Userregular
All of the huge million dollar kickstarters ive seen either had a company with a reputation behind it or very detailed plans with prototypes and everything in place with the machines waiting for the dollar bills to be inserted.
Amateurs are going to have a hard time asking for huge sums of money.
also kickstarter will not survive if it just becomes a vehicle for the vidjagame equivalent of the popular 80's movie reboot
It's been successfully working for a good while before the Doublefine thing. If they are clever they already have their plan for how to deal with the inevitable fuckup.
yeah
like
if i were designing the business model, I'd do it how winky suggested
the way it's set up currently it seems like it's just asking for a royal fuckup
screwups are manageable as long as the projects are cheap - some project for a few grand won't even go to Real Claims Court
but like a project for 2, 3, 4 million bucks? if something like that goes tits up, and KS isn't on it like a bonnet, they are screwed. the negative publicity alone will do them in.
Wazilla's idea is also completely fucked as well. If the money in kickstarter is effectively held in escrow until the product is released, what value would it have as a support to a bank loan?
if it's cash secured it would have really good value, actually. the bank wouldn't take the hit when you don't deliver like when they try to forclose on a house. when you default they just call KS and take their money.
what stops a person from promising to do something on kickstarter
and then not doing it and taking all the money
Fraud charges?
there's no legal obligation to deliver, though. afaik
like, i get kickstarter funds, blow through all my cash on "development" or whatever. It's all in the name of bringing my project together, but it goes towards my "office" and ramen noodles and whatnot
as long as i can prove that that cash went towards my project in some fashion, i skirt fraud charges
Yes there is a legal obligation to deliver. I'm not sure where you got that idea from. It's the same standard accountability issues for any other funding source.
0
Options
SarksusATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered Userregular
also kickstarter will not survive if it just becomes a vehicle for the vidjagame equivalent of the popular 80's movie reboot
It's been successfully working for a good while before the Doublefine thing. If they are clever they already have their plan for how to deal with the inevitable fuckup.
yeah
like
if i were designing the business model, I'd do it how winky suggested
the way it's set up currently it seems like it's just asking for a royal fuckup
screwups are manageable as long as the projects are cheap - some project for a few grand won't even go to Real Claims Court
but like a project for 2, 3, 4 million bucks? if something like that goes tits up, and KS isn't on it like a bonnet, they are screwed. the negative publicity alone will do them in.
Wazilla's idea is also completely fucked as well. If the money in kickstarter is effectively held in escrow until the product is released, what value would it have as a support to a bank loan?
if it's cash secured it would have really good value, actually. the bank wouldn't take the hit when you don't deliver like when they try to forclose on a house. when you default they just call KS and take their money.
What money. Nobody is going to put up cash if it goes to a bank when the project fails. This is a terrible idea.
Also I'm mad because my big post about how millionaire kickstarters are all well planned with prototypes and the product ready to fabricate or have companies with good reputations. Armatures would find it hard to raise that much.
0
Options
Mojo_JojoWe are only now beginning to understand the full power and ramifications of sexual intercourseRegistered Userregular
also kickstarter will not survive if it just becomes a vehicle for the vidjagame equivalent of the popular 80's movie reboot
It's been successfully working for a good while before the Doublefine thing. If they are clever they already have their plan for how to deal with the inevitable fuckup.
yeah
like
if i were designing the business model, I'd do it how winky suggested
the way it's set up currently it seems like it's just asking for a royal fuckup
screwups are manageable as long as the projects are cheap - some project for a few grand won't even go to Real Claims Court
but like a project for 2, 3, 4 million bucks? if something like that goes tits up, and KS isn't on it like a bonnet, they are screwed. the negative publicity alone will do them in.
Wazilla's idea is also completely fucked as well. If the money in kickstarter is effectively held in escrow until the product is released, what value would it have as a support to a bank loan?
if it's cash secured it would have really good value, actually. the bank wouldn't take the hit when you don't deliver like when they try to forclose on a house. when you default they just call KS and take their money.
So how is that different? Everybody has still lost their money if Kickstart pay the bank.
Homogeneous distribution of your varieties of amuse-gueule
what stops a person from promising to do something on kickstarter
and then not doing it and taking all the money
I think the way it works is that money only changes hands after the product is released?
So like, maybe the start up company can borrow against the money they have raised in the kickstarter but, until they release the product, they don't actually get the money from kickstarter.
Does that make sense?
Nope, once they exceed their goal and the time ends, everybody pays up.
It's inevitable that there will be a major shitstorm at some point when a major project doesn't deliver (it's happened for a least one small project that I'm familiar with).
Oh, well that's dumb. I wouldn't do it like that.
Having to borrow money after raising funds you can't touch would be an enormous pain in the ass and negate the benefits of Kickstarter.
How would it negate the benefits of kickstarter? It would make the process of securing a loan a lot easier than I imagine it is now, what, with having hundreds of thousands of dollars already put toward your project. Being able to put up kickstarter funds as collateral seems like a good idea to me!
Psn:wazukki
0
Options
Mojo_JojoWe are only now beginning to understand the full power and ramifications of sexual intercourseRegistered Userregular
From the Kickstarter website
Who is responsible for fulfilling the promises of a project?
It is the responsibility of the project creator to fulfill the promises of their project. Kickstarter reviews projects to ensure they do not violate the Project Guidelines, however Kickstarter does not investigate a creator's ability to complete their project.
Creators are encouraged to share links to any websites that show work related to the project, or past projects. It's up to them to make the case for their project and their ability to complete it. Because projects are usually funded by the friends, fans, and communities around its creator, there are powerful social forces that keep creators accountable.
A good rule of thumb for creators is to under-promise and over-deliver. Creators who provide a good experience for backers will find more success in the future. Finally, transparency and communication are vital, especially after funding has ended.
If I am unable to complete my project as listed, what should I do?
If you are unable to fulfill the promises made to backers, cannot complete the project as advertised, or decide to abandon the project for any reason, you are expected to cancel funding. A failure to do so could result in damage to your reputation or even legal action on behalf of your backers.
Homogeneous distribution of your varieties of amuse-gueule
what stops a person from promising to do something on kickstarter
and then not doing it and taking all the money
I think the way it works is that money only changes hands after the product is released?
So like, maybe the start up company can borrow against the money they have raised in the kickstarter but, until they release the product, they don't actually get the money from kickstarter.
Does that make sense?
Nope, once they exceed their goal and the time ends, everybody pays up.
It's inevitable that there will be a major shitstorm at some point when a major project doesn't deliver (it's happened for a least one small project that I'm familiar with).
Oh, well that's dumb. I wouldn't do it like that.
would you have the money change hands after the product is released, then?
Because I hope you see the obvious flaw in that.
I'm assuming the "obvious flaw" is that the company could release a shitty product or something that doesn't deliver on the features promised? And I'm hoping you see that obvious response that kickstarter as a company would have to such an action?
what stops a person from promising to do something on kickstarter
and then not doing it and taking all the money
I think the way it works is that money only changes hands after the product is released?
So like, maybe the start up company can borrow against the money they have raised in the kickstarter but, until they release the product, they don't actually get the money from kickstarter.
Does that make sense?
Nope, once they exceed their goal and the time ends, everybody pays up.
It's inevitable that there will be a major shitstorm at some point when a major project doesn't deliver (it's happened for a least one small project that I'm familiar with).
Oh, well that's dumb. I wouldn't do it like that.
would you have the money change hands after the product is released, then?
Because I hope you see the obvious flaw in that.
I'm assuming the "obvious flaw" is that the company could release a shitty product or something that doesn't deliver on the features promised? And I'm hoping you see that obvious response that kickstarter as a company would have to such an action?
no
the obvious flaw being if they don't fund it until after it is released then it won't have funding to get released
what stops a person from promising to do something on kickstarter
and then not doing it and taking all the money
Fraud charges?
there's no legal obligation to deliver, though. afaik
like, i get kickstarter funds, blow through all my cash on "development" or whatever. It's all in the name of bringing my project together, but it goes towards my "office" and ramen noodles and whatnot
as long as i can prove that that cash went towards my project in some fashion, i skirt fraud charges
Yes there is a legal obligation to deliver. I'm not sure where you got that idea from. It's the same standard accountability issues for any other funding source.
No there isnt!
If my idea doesn't work and my 30 grand or whatever isn't sufficient and I don't deliver, I haven't necessarily committed fraud.
also kickstarter will not survive if it just becomes a vehicle for the vidjagame equivalent of the popular 80's movie reboot
It's been successfully working for a good while before the Doublefine thing. If they are clever they already have their plan for how to deal with the inevitable fuckup.
yeah
like
if i were designing the business model, I'd do it how winky suggested
the way it's set up currently it seems like it's just asking for a royal fuckup
screwups are manageable as long as the projects are cheap - some project for a few grand won't even go to Real Claims Court
but like a project for 2, 3, 4 million bucks? if something like that goes tits up, and KS isn't on it like a bonnet, they are screwed. the negative publicity alone will do them in.
Wazilla's idea is also completely fucked as well. If the money in kickstarter is effectively held in escrow until the product is released, what value would it have as a support to a bank loan?
if it's cash secured it would have really good value, actually. the bank wouldn't take the hit when you don't deliver like when they try to forclose on a house. when you default they just call KS and take their money.
What money. Nobody is going to put up cash if it goes to a bank when the project fails. This is a terrible idea.
Also I'm mad because my big post about how millionaire kickstarters are all well planned with prototypes and the product ready to fabricate or have companies with good reputations. Armatures would find it hard to raise that much.
right now the cash goes to nobody if the project fails! some dude just got paid to not deliver!
infact, if kickstarter people had to apply through some financial institution that KS is linked up with, fraud would be much less of a worry
as it stands right now there is no legal precident for the dude who screws people on kickstarter
there is plenty of legal precedent for people who try to screw banks - spoiler alert - they lose.
infact, the more i think about it the better this sounds. it's like micro-micro private equity.
what stops a person from promising to do something on kickstarter
and then not doing it and taking all the money
I think the way it works is that money only changes hands after the product is released?
So like, maybe the start up company can borrow against the money they have raised in the kickstarter but, until they release the product, they don't actually get the money from kickstarter.
Does that make sense?
Nope, once they exceed their goal and the time ends, everybody pays up.
It's inevitable that there will be a major shitstorm at some point when a major project doesn't deliver (it's happened for a least one small project that I'm familiar with).
Oh, well that's dumb. I wouldn't do it like that.
would you have the money change hands after the product is released, then?
Because I hope you see the obvious flaw in that.
I'm assuming the "obvious flaw" is that the company could release a shitty product or something that doesn't deliver on the features promised? And I'm hoping you see that obvious response that kickstarter as a company would have to such an action?
no
the obvious flaw being if they don't fund it until after it is released then it won't have funding to get released
Oh, I've already addressed that!
@gooey I'm not seeing where @winky described his idea!
what stops a person from promising to do something on kickstarter
and then not doing it and taking all the money
I think the way it works is that money only changes hands after the product is released?
So like, maybe the start up company can borrow against the money they have raised in the kickstarter but, until they release the product, they don't actually get the money from kickstarter.
Does that make sense?
Nope, once they exceed their goal and the time ends, everybody pays up.
It's inevitable that there will be a major shitstorm at some point when a major project doesn't deliver (it's happened for a least one small project that I'm familiar with).
Oh, well that's dumb. I wouldn't do it like that.
would you have the money change hands after the product is released, then?
Because I hope you see the obvious flaw in that.
I'm assuming the "obvious flaw" is that the company could release a shitty product or something that doesn't deliver on the features promised? And I'm hoping you see that obvious response that kickstarter as a company would have to such an action?
I would say the obvious flaw is that if money doesn't change hands until after the product is delivered, that isn't funding. It's just a preorder.
what stops a person from promising to do something on kickstarter
and then not doing it and taking all the money
I think the way it works is that money only changes hands after the product is released?
So like, maybe the start up company can borrow against the money they have raised in the kickstarter but, until they release the product, they don't actually get the money from kickstarter.
Does that make sense?
Nope, once they exceed their goal and the time ends, everybody pays up.
It's inevitable that there will be a major shitstorm at some point when a major project doesn't deliver (it's happened for a least one small project that I'm familiar with).
Oh, well that's dumb. I wouldn't do it like that.
would you have the money change hands after the product is released, then?
Because I hope you see the obvious flaw in that.
I'm assuming the "obvious flaw" is that the company could release a shitty product or something that doesn't deliver on the features promised? And I'm hoping you see that obvious response that kickstarter as a company would have to such an action?
no
the obvious flaw being if they don't fund it until after it is released then it won't have funding to get released
Oh, I've already addressed that!
@gooey I'm not seeing where @winky described his idea!
I'm not seeing where. That they should borrow money, with the money they don't have?
If it fails, there is still zero money to pay down the loan. Bank is not amused.
0
Options
SarksusATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered Userregular
what stops a person from promising to do something on kickstarter
and then not doing it and taking all the money
I think the way it works is that money only changes hands after the product is released?
So like, maybe the start up company can borrow against the money they have raised in the kickstarter but, until they release the product, they don't actually get the money from kickstarter.
Does that make sense?
Nope, once they exceed their goal and the time ends, everybody pays up.
It's inevitable that there will be a major shitstorm at some point when a major project doesn't deliver (it's happened for a least one small project that I'm familiar with).
Oh, well that's dumb. I wouldn't do it like that.
Having to borrow money after raising funds you can't touch would be an enormous pain in the ass and negate the benefits of Kickstarter.
How would it negate the benefits of kickstarter? It would make the process of securing a loan a lot easier than I imagine it is now, what, with having hundreds of thousands of dollars already put toward your project. Being able to put up kickstarter funds as collateral seems like a good idea to me!
Kickstarter is basically a crowd sourced venture capital firm. Introducing a big stuffy bank into the process complicates and slows down the funding process. Silicon Valley was built because of venture capital firms and leaving risk-averse banks behind. Venture capital is more riskier but it's faster and more beneficial to people and small companies.
what stops a person from promising to do something on kickstarter
and then not doing it and taking all the money
I think the way it works is that money only changes hands after the product is released?
So like, maybe the start up company can borrow against the money they have raised in the kickstarter but, until they release the product, they don't actually get the money from kickstarter.
Does that make sense?
Nope, once they exceed their goal and the time ends, everybody pays up.
It's inevitable that there will be a major shitstorm at some point when a major project doesn't deliver (it's happened for a least one small project that I'm familiar with).
Oh, well that's dumb. I wouldn't do it like that.
would you have the money change hands after the product is released, then?
Because I hope you see the obvious flaw in that.
I'm assuming the "obvious flaw" is that the company could release a shitty product or something that doesn't deliver on the features promised? And I'm hoping you see that obvious response that kickstarter as a company would have to such an action?
no
the obvious flaw being if they don't fund it until after it is released then it won't have funding to get released
Oh, I've already addressed that!
@gooey I'm not seeing where @winky described his idea!
I'm not seeing where. That they should borrow money, with the money they don't have?
If it fails, there is still zero money to pay down the loan. Bank is not amused.
That's not really true. The bank would be able to take control and liquidate all assets of the failed company. Remember, I proposed this solution specifically to solve the "People starting kickstarter and running off with the money" problem. I think it works.
what stops a person from promising to do something on kickstarter
and then not doing it and taking all the money
I think the way it works is that money only changes hands after the product is released?
So like, maybe the start up company can borrow against the money they have raised in the kickstarter but, until they release the product, they don't actually get the money from kickstarter.
Does that make sense?
Nope, once they exceed their goal and the time ends, everybody pays up.
It's inevitable that there will be a major shitstorm at some point when a major project doesn't deliver (it's happened for a least one small project that I'm familiar with).
Oh, well that's dumb. I wouldn't do it like that.
would you have the money change hands after the product is released, then?
Because I hope you see the obvious flaw in that.
I'm assuming the "obvious flaw" is that the company could release a shitty product or something that doesn't deliver on the features promised? And I'm hoping you see that obvious response that kickstarter as a company would have to such an action?
no
the obvious flaw being if they don't fund it until after it is released then it won't have funding to get released
Oh, I've already addressed that!
@gooey I'm not seeing where @winky described his idea!
I don't understand where I am involved here.
But, on this subject, Kickstarter funds are donations, not actual payment for a service.
Though I'm pretty sure that taking all the money and then just not doing the project would be a con and be punishable by law.
I don't know that much about Kickstarter, and you know what I think?
That I don't know much about Kickstarter and I'm not qualified to have an opinion on this thing that is innovative and new and I don't know much about.
what stops a person from promising to do something on kickstarter
and then not doing it and taking all the money
I think the way it works is that money only changes hands after the product is released?
So like, maybe the start up company can borrow against the money they have raised in the kickstarter but, until they release the product, they don't actually get the money from kickstarter.
Does that make sense?
Nope, once they exceed their goal and the time ends, everybody pays up.
It's inevitable that there will be a major shitstorm at some point when a major project doesn't deliver (it's happened for a least one small project that I'm familiar with).
Oh, well that's dumb. I wouldn't do it like that.
would you have the money change hands after the product is released, then?
Because I hope you see the obvious flaw in that.
I'm assuming the "obvious flaw" is that the company could release a shitty product or something that doesn't deliver on the features promised? And I'm hoping you see that obvious response that kickstarter as a company would have to such an action?
no
the obvious flaw being if they don't fund it until after it is released then it won't have funding to get released
Oh, I've already addressed that!
@gooey I'm not seeing where @winky described his idea!
I'm not seeing where. That they should borrow money, with the money they don't have?
If it fails, there is still zero money to pay down the loan. Bank is not amused.
That's not really true. The bank would be able to take control and liquidate all assets of the failed company. Remember, I proposed this solution specifically to solve the "People starting kickstarter and running off with the money" problem. I think it works.
what assets?
if the company had enough assets to get a big enough loan, they don't need the kickstarter
Posts
Amateurs are going to have a hard time asking for huge sums of money.
Kickstarter is full of funded and delivered products with happy customers, so clearly there are good people at work out there.
A big project that fails to deliver wouldn't be a scam
it would still be bad for kickstarter
if it's cash secured it would have really good value, actually. the bank wouldn't take the hit when you don't deliver like when they try to forclose on a house. when you default they just call KS and take their money.
also massive invasion of privacy blah blah blah
I have been one of these customers!
Yes there is a legal obligation to deliver. I'm not sure where you got that idea from. It's the same standard accountability issues for any other funding source.
What money. Nobody is going to put up cash if it goes to a bank when the project fails. This is a terrible idea.
Also I'm mad because my big post about how millionaire kickstarters are all well planned with prototypes and the product ready to fabricate or have companies with good reputations. Armatures would find it hard to raise that much.
So how is that different? Everybody has still lost their money if Kickstart pay the bank.
How would it negate the benefits of kickstarter? It would make the process of securing a loan a lot easier than I imagine it is now, what, with having hundreds of thousands of dollars already put toward your project. Being able to put up kickstarter funds as collateral seems like a good idea to me!
I'm assuming the "obvious flaw" is that the company could release a shitty product or something that doesn't deliver on the features promised? And I'm hoping you see that obvious response that kickstarter as a company would have to such an action?
no
the obvious flaw being if they don't fund it until after it is released then it won't have funding to get released
But
Yes! They already have a built-in single port exhaust pipe!
Whyyyyy
No there isnt!
If my idea doesn't work and my 30 grand or whatever isn't sufficient and I don't deliver, I haven't necessarily committed fraud.
right now the cash goes to nobody if the project fails! some dude just got paid to not deliver!
infact, if kickstarter people had to apply through some financial institution that KS is linked up with, fraud would be much less of a worry
as it stands right now there is no legal precident for the dude who screws people on kickstarter
there is plenty of legal precedent for people who try to screw banks - spoiler alert - they lose.
infact, the more i think about it the better this sounds. it's like micro-micro private equity.
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1497254033/atheist-shoes
Oh, I've already addressed that!
@gooey I'm not seeing where @winky described his idea!
I would say the obvious flaw is that if money doesn't change hands until after the product is delivered, that isn't funding. It's just a preorder.
--LeVar Burton
i am dewing a few things at once this morning
create a kickstarter project to get kickstarter to change their business model
this is the best idea
create a kickstarter to take over kickstarter
I'm not seeing where. That they should borrow money, with the money they don't have?
If it fails, there is still zero money to pay down the loan. Bank is not amused.
Kickstarter is basically a crowd sourced venture capital firm. Introducing a big stuffy bank into the process complicates and slows down the funding process. Silicon Valley was built because of venture capital firms and leaving risk-averse banks behind. Venture capital is more riskier but it's faster and more beneficial to people and small companies.
I actually like those shoes, but I definitely don't $180 like them. Damn.
twitch.tv/tehsloth
And terrible
my favorite pose is "the thinker"
That would be cool yes.
Seriously though I need them to make a sequel. Like now!
thats what the toiletcam was for
59 THOUSAND DOLLARS TO YOU
That's not really true. The bank would be able to take control and liquidate all assets of the failed company. Remember, I proposed this solution specifically to solve the "People starting kickstarter and running off with the money" problem. I think it works.
I don't understand where I am involved here.
But, on this subject, Kickstarter funds are donations, not actual payment for a service.
Though I'm pretty sure that taking all the money and then just not doing the project would be a con and be punishable by law.
That I don't know much about Kickstarter and I'm not qualified to have an opinion on this thing that is innovative and new and I don't know much about.
well
that's not ALL the toiletcam was for
gooey'sgooies.com
what assets?
if the company had enough assets to get a big enough loan, they don't need the kickstarter