Recent from talks
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Crowdfunding
View on WikipediaCrowdfunding is the practice of funding a project or venture by raising money from a large number of people, typically via the internet.[1][2] Crowdfunding is a form of crowdsourcing and alternative finance, to fund projects "without standard financial intermediaries".[3] In 2015, over US$34 billion was raised worldwide by crowdfunding.[4]
Although similar concepts can also be executed through mail-order subscriptions, benefit events, and other methods, the term crowdfunding refers to internet-mediated registries.[5] This modern crowdfunding model is generally based on three types of actors – the project initiator who proposes the idea or project to be funded, individuals or groups who support the idea, and a moderating organization (the "platform") that brings the parties together to launch the idea.[6]
The term crowdfunding was coined in 2006 by entrepreneur and technologist, Michael Sullivan, to differentiate traditional fundraising with the trends of native Internet projects, companies and community efforts to support various kinds of creators. Crowdfunding has been used to fund a wide range of for-profit entrepreneurial ventures such as artistic and creative projects,[7] medical expenses, travel, and community-oriented social entrepreneurship projects.[8] Although crowdfunding has been suggested to be highly linked to sustainability, empirical validation has shown that sustainability plays only a fractional role in crowdfunding.[9] Its use has also been criticized for funding quackery, especially costly and fraudulent cancer treatments.[10][11][12][13]
History
[edit]
Funding by collecting small donations from many people has a long history with many roots. Books have been funded in this way in the past; authors and publishers would advertise book projects in praenumeration or subscription schemes. The book would be written and published if enough subscribers signaled their readiness to buy the book once it was out. The subscription business model is not exactly crowdfunding, since the actual flow of money only begins with the arrival of the product. However, the list of subscribers has the power to create the necessary confidence among investors that is needed to risk the publication.[15]
War bonds are theoretically a form of crowdfunding military conflicts. London's mercantile community saved the Bank of England in the 1730s when customers demanded their pounds to be converted into gold – they supported the currency until confidence in the pound was restored, thus crowdfunding their own money. A clearer case of modern crowdfunding is Auguste Comte's scheme to issue notes for the public support of his further work as a philosopher. The "Première Circulaire Annuelle adressée par l'auteur du Système de Philosophie Positive" was published on March 14, 1850, and several of these notes, blank and with sums, have survived.[14] The cooperative movement of the 19th and 20th centuries is a broader precursor. It generated collective groups, such as community or interest-based groups, pooling subscribed funds to develop new concepts, products, and means of distribution and production, particularly in rural areas of Western Europe and North America. In 1885, when government sources failed to provide funding to build a monumental base for the Statue of Liberty, a newspaper-led campaign attracted small donations from 160,000 donors.[15]
Crowdfunding on the internet first gained popular and mainstream use in the arts and music communities.[16] One of the earlier instances of online crowdfunding in the music industry was in 1997, when fans of the British rock band Marillion raised US$60,000 in donations through an Internet campaign to underwrite an entire U.S. tour however this was not crowdfunding in its true sense as it wasn't asked for by the band and only reluctantly taken. The band subsequently used this method to fund their studio albums.[17][18][19] This built on the success of crowdfunding via magazines, such as the 1992 campaign by the Vegan Society that crowdfunded the production of the Truth or Dairy video documentary.[20] In the film industry, writer/director Mark Tapio Kines designed a website in 1997 for his then-unfinished first feature film, the independent drama Foreign Correspondents. By early 1999, he had raised more than US$125,000 through the site from various fans and investors, providing him with the funds to complete his film.[21] In 2002, the "Free Blender" campaign was an early software crowdfunding precursor.[22][23] The campaign aimed for open-sourcing the Blender 3D computer graphics software by collecting €100,000 from the community, while offering additional benefits for donating members.[24][25]
The first online crowdfunding platform, ArtistShare launched in 2001, was innovative in providing an opportunity to mix various rewards.[26][27][28] As the model matured, more crowdfunding sites started to appear on the web such as Kiva (2005), The Point (2008, precursor to Groupon), Indiegogo (2008), Kickstarter (2009), GoFundMe (2010), Microventures (2010), YouCaring (2011).,[29][30] and Redshine Publication (2012) for book publication.[31]
The phenomenon of crowdfunding is older than the term "crowdfunding". The earliest recorded use of the word was in August 2006.[32] Crowdfunding is a part of crowdsourcing, which is a much wider phenomenon itself.
The use of crowdfunding in the US has gained an increased presence since the JOBS Act and has a significant social media presence. "Approximately 25 percent of real-world relationships start online, with people of all ages migrating online to find a partner. Crowdfunding is doing for small businesses and entrepreneurs what dating sites have done for singles."[33] Those unable to procure funding from traditional methods may be interested in pursuing crowdfunding as an option; however, the success rate may be a deterrent. E. Mollick examined Kickstarter projects from 2009 through 2012 and found many projects were not successful as only "3% raise 50% of their goal," and he stated that successful projects succeed "by relatively small margins."[3]
Types
[edit]The Crowdfunding Centre's May 2014 report identified two primary types of crowdfunding:
- Rewards crowdfunding, in which entrepreneurs pre-sell a product or service to launch a business concept without incurring debt or sacrificing equity/shares.
- Equity crowdfunding, in which the backer receives shares of a company, usually in its early stages, in exchange for the money pledged.[34]
Reward-based
[edit]Reward-based crowdfunding has been used for a wide range of purposes, including album recording and motion-picture promotion,[35] free software development, inventions development, scientific research,[36] and civic projects.[37]
Many characteristics of rewards-based crowdfunding, also called non-equity crowdfunding, have been identified by research studies. In rewards-based crowdfunding, funding does not rely on location. The distance between creators and investors on Sellaband was about 3,000 miles when the platform introduced royalty sharing. The funding for these projects is distributed unevenly, with a few projects accounting for the majority of overall funding. Additionally, funding increases as a project nears its goal, encouraging what is called "herding behavior". Research also shows that friends and family account for a large, or even majority, portion of early fundraising. This capital may encourage subsequent funders to invest in the project. While funding does not depend on location, observation shows that funding is largely tied to the locations of traditional financing options. In reward-based crowdfunding, funders are often too hopeful about project returns and must revise expectations when returns are not met.[16]
Equity
[edit]Equity crowdfunding is the collective effort of individuals to support efforts initiated by other people or organizations through the provision of finance in the form of equity.[38] In the United States, legislation that is mentioned in the 2012 JOBS Act will allow for a wider pool of small investors with fewer restrictions following the implementation of the act.[39] Unlike non-equity crowdfunding, equity crowdfunding contains heightened "information asymmetries." The creator must not only produce the product for which they are raising capital, but also create equity through the construction of a company.[16] Equity crowdfunding, unlike donation and rewards-based crowdfunding, involves the offer of securities which include the potential for a return on investment. Syndicates, which involve many investors following the strategy of a single lead investor, can be effective in reducing information asymmetry and in avoiding the outcome of market failure associated with equity crowdfunding.[40]
Contributors may act as investors and receive shares directly, or the crowdfunding service may act as a nominated agent.[41] Equity crowdfunding helps "the 90 percent of businesses that were left out in the cold" by traditional funding methods, which is why it has become such a viable option for business startups.[33]
Equity-based funding is illegal in many countries, such as India. In the United States the JOBS Act of 2012 regulated the trend. This "legislation was intended to increase access to capital for the innovative companies" in need of investment capital and allows a pool of small investors to come together.[33] The Regulation was updated in 2021 by the SEC allowing companies to up to $5 million per year from unaccredited investors and allowing investors to invest more.[42]
Digital security
[edit]Another kind of crowdfunding is to raise funds for a project where a digital security is offered as a reward to funders which is known as Initial coin offering (abbreviated to ICO).[43] Some value tokens are endogenously created by particular open decentralized networks that are used to incentivize client computers of the network to expend scarce computer resources on maintaining the protocol network. These value tokens may or may not exist at the time of the crowdsale, and may require substantial development effort and eventual software release before the token is live and establishes a market value. Although funds may be raised simply for the value token itself, funds raised on blockchain-based crowdfunding can also represent equity, bonds, or even "market-maker seats of governance" for the entity being funded.[44] Examples of such crowd sales are Augur decentralized, distributed prediction market software which raised US$4 million from more than 3500 participants;[44] Ethereum blockchain; and "the Decentralized Autonomous Organization".[45][46][47][48]
Debt-based
[edit]Debt-based crowdfunding, (also known as "peer-to-peer", "P2P", "marketplace lending", or "crowdlending") arose with the founding of Zopa in the UK in 2005[49] and in the US in 2006, with the launches of Lending Club and Prosper.com.[50] Borrowers apply online, generally for free, and their application is reviewed and verified by an automated system, which also determines the borrower's credit risk and interest rate. Investors buy securities in a fund that makes the loans to individual borrowers or bundles of borrowers. Investors make money from interest on the unsecured loans; the system operators make money by taking a percentage of the loan and a loan servicing fee.[50] In 2009, institutional investors entered the P2P lending arena; for example in 2013, Google invested $125 million in Lending Club.[50] In 2014, in the US, P2P lending totaled about $5 billion.[51] In 2014, in the UK, P2P platforms lent businesses £749 million, a growth of 250% from 2012 to 2014, and lent retail customers £547 million, a growth of 108% from 2012 to 2014.[52]: 23 In both countries in 2014, about 75% of all the money transferred through crowdfunding went through P2P platforms.[51] Lending Club went public in December 2014 at a valuation around $9 billion.[50]
Litigation
[edit]Litigation crowdfunding allows plaintiffs or defendants to reach out to hundreds of their peers simultaneously in a semi-private and confidential manner to obtain funding, either seeking donations or providing a reward in return for funding. It also allows investors to purchase a stake in a claim they have funded, which may allow them to get back more than their investment if the case succeeds (the reward is based on the compensation received by the litigant at the end of his or her case, known as a contingent fee in the United States, a success fee in the United Kingdom, or a pactum de quota litis in many civil law systems).[53] LexShares is a platform that allows accredited investors to invest in lawsuits.[54] If the claimant wins, investors may get more than their initial investment.[55]
Donation-based
[edit]Donation-based crowdfunding is the collective effort of individuals to help charitable causes.[56][57] In donation-based crowdfunding, funds are raised for religious, social environmental, or other purposes.[58] Donors come together to create an online community around a common cause to help fund services and programs to combat a variety of issues including healthcare[59] and community development.[60] The major aspect of donor-based crowdfunding is that there is no reward for donating; rather, it is based on the donor's altruistic reasoning.[61] Ethical concerns have been raised to the increasing popularity of donation-based crowdfunding, which can be affected by fraudulent campaigns and privacy issues.[62]
Role
[edit]The inputs of the individuals in the crowd trigger the crowdfunding process and influence the ultimate value of the offerings or outcomes of the process. Individuals act as agents of the offering, selecting, and promoting of the projects in which they believe. They sometimes play a donor role oriented towards providing help on social projects. In some cases, they become shareholders and contribute to the development and growth of the offering. Individuals disseminate information about projects they support in their online communities, generating further support (promoters).
The motivation for consumer participation stems from the feeling of being at least partly responsible for the success of others people's initiatives (desire for patronage), striving to be a part of a communal social initiative (desire for social participation), and seeking a payoff from monetary contributions (desire for investment).[6] Additionally, individuals participate in crowdfunding to see new products before the public. Early access often allows funders to participate more directly in the development of the product. Crowdfunding is also particularly attractive to funders who are family and friends of a creator. It helps to mediate the terms of their financial agreement and manage each group's expectations for the project.[16]
An individual who takes part in crowdfunding initiatives tends to have several distinct traits – innovative orientation, which stimulates the desire to try new modes of interacting with firms and other consumers; social identification with the content, cause, or project selected for funding, which sparks the desire to be a part of the initiative; and (monetary) exploitation, which motivates the individual to participate by expecting a payoff.[6] Crowdfunding platforms are motivated to generate income by drawing worthwhile projects and generous funders. These sites also seek widespread public attention for their projects and platform.[16]
Crowdfunding websites helped companies and individuals worldwide raise US$89 million from members of the public in 2010, $1.47 billion in 2011, and $2.66 billion in 2012 — $1.6 billion of the 2012 amount was raised in North America.[63]
Crowdfunding is expected to reach US$1 trillion in 2025.[64] A May 2014 report, released by the United Kingdom-based The Crowdfunding Centre and titled "The State of the Crowdfunding Nation", presented data showing that during March 2014, more than US$60,000 were raised on an hourly basis via global crowdfunding initiatives. Also during this period, 442 crowdfunding campaigns were launched globally on a daily basis.[34]
The future growth potential of crowdfunding platforms also depends on their financing volume with venture capital. Between January 2017 and April 2020 globally 99 venture capital financing rounds for crowdfunding platforms took place with more than half a billion USD of total money raised. The median amount per venture capital financing rounds for crowdfunding was $5 million in the U.S. and $1.5 million in Europe between January 2017 and April 2020.[65]
Platforms
[edit]In 2015, it was predicted that over 2,000 crowdfunding sites would be available to choose from in 2016.[66] As of 2021, there are 1,478 crowdfunding organizations in the US (Crunchbase, 2021).[67] As of January 2021, Kickstarter has raised more than $5.6 billion spread over 197,425 projects.[68]
Crowdfunding platforms have differences in the services they provide and the type of projects they support.[6]
Curated crowdfunding platforms serve as "network orchestrators" by curating the offerings that are allowed on the platform. They create the necessary organizational systems and conditions for resource integration among other players to take place.[6] Relational mediators act as an intermediary between supply and demand. They replace traditional intermediaries (such as traditional record companies, venture capitalists). These platforms link new artists, designers, project initiators with committed supporters who believe in the persons behind the projects strongly enough to provide monetary support.[16]
In response to arbitrary crowdfunding curation on existing platforms, an open source alternative called Selfstarter[69] emerged in late 2012 from the project Lockitron after it was rejected from Kickstarter.[70] While Selfstarter required the creators of the project to set up hosting and payment processing, it proved that projects could successfully crowdfund without middlemen taking a significant percentage of the money raised.
Online crowdfunding donors differ from traditional fundraising donors in that donors give anonymously, do not have a connection to the recipient, and donors may seek out a cause or recipient to give to.[71] Another important factor is that online donors are not limited by their geographic location and can give to individuals or organizations anywhere in the world. Once a fundraiser is created, individuals can share the details anywhere to attract donors and gather funds for their cause.When it comes to motives, donations are made to individuals to help them reach a goal and typically drop off once that is met; however, donations to organizations are made for a greater societal good.[71] The demographics of online donors vary from traditional donors as "online donors tend to be younger and give larger gifts than traditional donors."[72] This is important for online campaign organizers to note as they determine their target audience; however, those over 50 have increased their social media usage and have a presence on Facebook.[72]
More research is needed in regard to the topic of crowdfunding in general. There are benefits to online crowdfunding as it has the ability to tap into audiences that are not close in geographic proximity to an individual or organization and to increase awareness about a campaign. However, with relatively low funding success rates reported, "social networking and traditional approaches to fundraising may be complements" to help individuals and organizations raise funds but not a replacement."[72]
Significant campaigns
[edit]Crowdfunding for Statue of Liberty
[edit]In the summer of 1885, crowdfunding averted a crisis that threatened the completion of the Statue of Liberty. Construction of the statue's pedestal stalled due to a lack of financing. Fundraising efforts for the project fell short of the necessary amount by more than a third. New York Governor Grover Cleveland refused to appropriate city funds for the project, and Congress could not agree on a funding package.
Recognizing the social and symbolic significance of the statue, publisher Joseph Pulitzer came to the rescue by launching a five-month fundraising campaign in his newspaper The World. The paper solicited contributions by publishing articles that appealed to the emotions of New Yorkers. Donations of all sizes poured in, ranging from $0.15 to $250. More than 160,000 people across America gave, including businessmen, waiters, children, and politicians. The paper chronicled each donation, published letters from contributors on the front page, and kept a running tally of funds raised.
The campaign raised over $100,000 (roughly $2 million today) allowing the city to complete construction of the pedestal. Pulitzer and The World simultaneously saved the Statue of Liberty and gave birth to crowdfunding in American politics.
Crowdfunding for Cairo University
[edit]The Egyptian national leader, Mustafa Kamel, launched an initiative for public subscription in favor of establishing the first Egyptian university, and published an advertisement in Al-Ahram newspaper in October 1906 calling on Egyptians to fulfill the nation's debt and not procrastinate with it. Indeed, many people including school children rushed to donate, and the patriots encouraged this subscription until donations exceeded 4,400 Egyptian pounds.
The National University was opened on December 21, 1908, in a large ceremony in the hall of the Shura Council of Laws, in the presence of Khedive Abbas II and senior statesmen and notables. Its director was the politician and writer Ahmed Lutfi al-Sayyid while the chairman of its board of directors was King Fouad the first. In 1953 the National University changed its name to Cairo University.
Early campaigns
[edit]Marillion started crowdfunding in 1997. Fans of the British rock band raised $60,000 (£39,000) via the internet to help finance a North American tour.[73][18] The Professional Contractors Group, a trade body representing freelancers in the UK, raised £100,000 over a two-week period in 1999[74] from some 2000 freelancers threatened by a government measure known as IR35. In 2003, jazz composer Maria Schneider (musician) launched the first crowdfunding campaign on ArtistShare for a new recording.[75] The recording was funded by her fans and became the first recording in history to win a Grammy Award without being available in retail stores.
Oliver Twisted (Erik Estrada, Karen Black) was an early crowdfunded film.[76] Subscribers of The Blue Sheet formed The Florida Film Investment Co (FFI) in January 1995, and started selling shares of stock at $10 a share to fund the $80,000 – $100,000 film. The Movie was filmed in Oct 1996. The film was distributed by RGH/Lion's Shares Pictures.[77]
In 2004, Electric Eel Shock, a Japanese rock band, raised £10,000 from 100 fans (the Samurai 100) by offering them a lifetime membership on the band's guestlist.[78] Two years later, they became the fastest band to raise a US$50,000 budget on SellaBand.[79] Franny Armstrong later created a donation system for her feature film The Age of Stupid.[80] Over five years, from June 2004 to June 2009 (release date), she raised £1,500,000.[81]
Highest-grossing campaigns
[edit]As of the beginning of 2025, the highest reported funding by a crowdfunded project to date is Star Citizen, an online space trading and combat video game being developed by Chris Roberts and Cloud Imperium Games; it has raised over $800M to date, and while it has a devoted fan base, criticism has arisen for being a potential scam.[82]
Kickstarter campaigns
[edit]On April 17, 2014, The Guardian media outlet published a list of "20 of the most significant projects" launched on the Kickstarter platform prior to the date of publication,[83] including: Musician Amanda Palmer raised US$1.2 million from 24,883 backers in June 2012 to make a new album and art book.[84]
Other campaigns include:
- The "Coolest Cooler" raised a total of $13,285,226 from 62,642 backers in July 2014 in a campaign run by Funded Today.[85] The cooler features a blender, waterproof Bluetooth speakers and an LED light.
- Zack Brown raised $55,000 from over 6,900 backers in September 2014 to make a bowl of potato salad. Noteworthy is that his initial goal was only $10, but his campaign went viral and got a lot of attention. Brown ended up throwing a potato salad party with over 3,000 pounds of potatoes.[86]
- Actor and director Zach Braff raised more than $3 million via a Kickstarter campaign to fund his 2014 movie Wish I Was Here[87]
Kickstarter has been used to successfully revive or launch television and film projects that could not get funding elsewhere.[88] These are the current record holders for projects in the "film" category:
- Critical Role raised a total of $11,385,449 with 88,887 backers in April 2019 to make an animated TV show based on their Twitch live-streamed Dungeons & Dragons game. Not only did the campaign exceed the $750,000 goal, but the campaign also broke the Kickstarter record for most money raised for projects in the "film" category.[89]
- Mystery Science Theater 3000 raised a total of $5,764,229 with 48,270 backers in December 2015 to create 14 episodes of the new series, including a holiday special.[90][91]
- Veronica Mars raised a total of $5,702,153 with 91,585 backers in March 2013 to create a film set 9 years after the end of the TV show. In the campaign's first 12 hours of existence, it became the fastest Kickstarter campaign to reach both $1 million and $2 million and it held onto the record of highest in the "film" category until Mystery Science Theater 3000 beat it in 2015.[88][91]
Third parties
[edit]A number of private companies thrive on crowdfunding and offer services related to a number of platforms. Examples include large companies like BackerKit that principally offer data analysis of campaigns, or Y Combinator, which acts as a startup accelerator and receives a significant number of its applicants from platforms such as Kickstarter and Indiegogo.[92] The Italian-American company Atellani USA was originally founded with the intent to market, accelerate, and invest in startups wanting to publicize their ideas via crowdfunding platforms like Kickstarter, often designing the startup's campaign and online material.
Applications
[edit]Crowdfunding is being explored as a potential funding mechanism for creative work such as blogging and journalism,[93] music, independent film (see crowdfunded film),[94][95] and for funding startup companies.[96][97][98][99]
Community music labels are usually for-profit organizations where "fans assume the traditional financier role of a record label for artists they believe in by funding the recording process".[100] Since pioneering crowdfunding in the film industry, Spanner Films has published a "how-to" guide.[101] A Financial article published in mid-September 2013 stated that "the niche for crowdfunding exists in financing films with budgets in the [US]$1 to $10 million range" and crowdfunding campaigns are "much more likely to be successful if they tap into a significant pre-existing fan base and fulfill an existing gap in the market."[102] Innovative new platforms, such as RocketHub, have emerged that combine traditional funding for creative work with branded crowdsourcing—helping artists and entrepreneurs unite with brands "without the need for a middle man."[103]
Philanthropy and civic projects
[edit]A variety of crowdfunding platforms have emerged to allow ordinary web users to support specific philanthropic projects without the need for large amounts of money.[37] GlobalGiving allows individuals to browse through a selection of small projects proposed by nonprofit organizations worldwide, donating funds to projects of their choice. Microcredit crowdfunding platforms such as Kiva (organization) facilitate crowdfunding of loans managed by microcredit organizations in developing countries. The US-based nonprofit Zidisha applies a direct person-to-person lending model to microcredit lending for low-income small business owners in developing countries.[104] In 2017, Facebook initiated "Fundraisers", an internal plug-in function that allows its users to raise money for nonprofits.[105]
DonorsChoose.org, founded in 2000, allows public school teachers in the United States to request materials for their classrooms. Individuals can lend money to teacher-proposed projects, and the organization fulfills and delivers supplies to schools. There are also a number of own-branded university crowdfunding websites, which enable students and staff to create projects and receive funding from alumni of the university or the general public. Several dedicated civic crowdfunding platforms have emerged in the US and the UK, some of which have led to the first direct involvement of governments in crowdfunding. In the UK, Spacehive is used by the Mayor of London and Manchester City Council to co-fund civic projects created by citizens.[106] Similarly, dedicated Humanitarian Crowdfunding initiatives are emerging, involving humanitarian organizations, volunteers, and supporters in solving and modeling how to build innovative crowdfunding solutions for the humanitarian community. Likewise, international organizations like the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) have been researching and publishing about the topic.[107]
One crowdfunding project, iCancer, was used to support a Phase 1 trial of AdVince, an anti-cancer drug in 2016.[108][109]
Research into the suitability of crowdfunding for civic investment in the UK highlights that the public sector has not fully realized the benefits of a crowdfunding approach.[110]
Real estate
[edit]Real estate crowdfunding is the online pooling of capital from investors to fund mortgages secured by real estate, such as "fix and flip" redevelopment of distressed or abandoned properties, equity for commercial and residential projects, acquisition of pools of distressed mortgages, home buyer down payments, and similar real estate related outlets. Investment, via specialized online platforms in the US, is generally completed under Title II of the JOBS Act and is limited to accredited investors. The platforms offer low minimum investments, often $100 – $10,000.[111][112] There are over 75 real estate crowdfunding platforms in the United States.[113] The growth of real estate crowdfunding is a global trend. During 2014 and 2015, more than 150 platforms have been created throughout the world, such as in China, the Middle East, or France. In Europe, some compare this growing industry to that of e-commerce ten years earlier.[114] Examples of real estate crowdfunding platforms are EquityMultiple, Fundrise, Yieldstreet, CrowdStreet, RealtyMogul, and SmartCrowd, the first digital real estate crowdfunding platform of its kind in the Middle East.[115][116][117]
In Europe, the requirements towards investors are not as high as in the United States, lowering the entry barrier into the real estate investments in general.[118] Real estate crowdfunding can include various project types from commercial to residential developments, planning gain opportunities, build to hold (such as social housing), and many more. The report from Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance addresses both real estate crowdfunding and peer 2 peer lending (property) in the UK.[119]
Intellectual property exposure
[edit]One of the challenges of posting new ideas on crowdfunding sites is there may be little or no intellectual property (IP) protection provided by the sites themselves. Once an idea is posted, it can be copied. As Slava Rubin, founder of IndieGoGo, said: "We get asked that all the time, 'How do you protect me from someone stealing my idea?' We're not liable for any of that stuff."[120] Inventor advocates, such as Simon Brown, founder of the UK-based United Innovation Association, counsel that ideas can be protected on crowdfunding sites through early filing of patent applications, use of copyright and trademark protection as well as a new form of idea protection supported by the World Intellectual Property Organization called Creative Barcode.[121]
Science
[edit]A number of platforms have also emerged that specialize in the crowdfunding of scientific projects, such as experiment.com, and The Open Source Science Project.[122][123] In the scientific community, these new options for research funding are seen ambivalently. Advocates of crowdfunding for science emphasize that it allows early-career scientists to apply for their own projects early on, that it forces scientists to communicate clearly and comprehensively to a broader public, that it may alleviate problems of the established funding systems which are seen to fund conventional, mainstream projects, and that it gives the public a say in science funding.[124] In turn, critics are worried about quality control on crowdfunding platforms. If non-scientists were allowed to make funding decisions, it would be more likely that "panda bear science" is funded, i.e. research with broad appeal but lacking scientific substance.[125]
Initial studies found that crowdfunding is used within science, mostly by young researchers to fund small parts of their projects, and with high success rates. At the same time, funding success seems to be strongly influenced by non-scientific factors like humor, visualizations, or the ease and security of payment.[126]
Journalism
[edit]In order to fund online and print publications, journalists are enlisting the help of crowdfunding. Crowdfunding allows for small start-ups and individual journalists to fund their work without the institutional help of major public broadcasters. Stories are publicly pitched using crowdfunding platforms such as Kickstarter, Indiegogo, or Spot.us. The funds collected from crowdsourcing may be put toward travel expenses or purchasing equipment. Crowdfunding in journalism may also be viewed as a way to allow audiences to participate in news production and in creating a participatory culture.[127] Though deciding which stories are published is a role that traditionally belongs to editors at more established publications, crowdfunding can give the public an opportunity to provide input in deciding which stories are reported. This is done by funding certain reporters and their pitches. Donating can be seen as an act that "bonds" reporters and their readers. This is because readers are expressing interest for their work, which can be "personally motivating" or "gratifying" for reporters.[128]
Spot.us, which was closed in February 2015, was a crowdfunding platform that was specifically meant for journalism.[127][129] The website allowed for readers, individual donors, registered Spot.us reporters, or news organizations to fund or donate talent toward a pitch of their choosing. While funders are not normally involved in editorial control, Spot.us allowed for donors or "community members" to become involved with the co-creation of a story. This gave them the ability to edit articles, submit photographs, or share leads and information.[128] According to an analysis by Public Insight Network, Spot.us was not sustainable for various reasons. Many contributors were not returning donors and often, projects were funded by family and friends. The overall market for crowdfunding journalism may also be a factor; donations for journalism projects accounted for .13 percent of the $2.8 billion that was raised in 2013.[129]
Traditionally, journalists are not involved in advertising and marketing. Crowdfunding means that journalists are attracting funders while trying to remain independent, which may pose a conflict. Therefore, being directly involved with financial aspects can call journalistic integrity and journalistic objectivity into question. This is also due to the fact that journalists may feel some pressure or "a sense of responsibility" toward funders who support a particular project.[127] Crowdfunding can also allow for a blurred line between professional and non-professional journalism because if enough interest is generated, anyone may have their work published.[130] Crowdfunding enables freelance journalists to travel to the sites to find the new sources.[127]
International development
[edit]There is some hope that crowdfunding has potential as a tool open for use by groups of people traditionally more marginalized. The World Bank published a report titled "Crowdfunding's Potential for the Developing World" which states that "While crowdfunding is still largely a developed world phenomenon, with the support of governments and development organizations it could become a useful tool in the developing world as well. Substantial reservoirs of entrepreneurial talent, activity, and capital lay dormant in many emerging economies ... Crowdfunding and crowdfund investing have several important roles to play in the developing world's entrepreneurial and venture finance ecosystem."[131]
Legal developments
[edit]The examples and perspective in this section deal primarily with US-centric section and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. (May 2025) |
As the popularity of crowdfunding expanded, the SEC, state governments, and Congress responded by enacting and refining many capital-raising exemptions to allow easier access to alternative funding sources. Initially, the Securities Act of 1933 banned companies from soliciting capital from the general public for private offerings. However, "President Obama signed the Jumpstart Our Small Businesses Act ('JOBS Act') into law on April 5, 2012, which removed the ban on general solicitation activities for issuers qualifying under a new exemption called 'Rule 506(c).'" A company can now broadly solicit and generally advertise an offering and still be compliant with the exemption's requirements if:
- The investors in the offering are all accredited investors; and
- The company takes reasonable steps to verify that the investors are accredited investors, which could include reviewing documentation, such as W-2s, tax returns, bank and brokerage statements, credit reports and the like.[132]
Another change was the amendment of SEC Rule 147. Section 3(a)(11) of the Securities Act allows for unlimited capital raising from investors in a single state through an intrastate exemption. However, the SEC created Rule 147 with a number of requirements to ensure compliance. For example, the intrastate solicitation was allowed, but a single out-of-state offer could destroy the exemption. Additionally, the issuer was required to be incorporated and do business in the same state of the intrastate offering. With the expansion of interstate business activities because of the internet, it became difficult for businesses to comply with the exemption. Therefore, on October 26, 2016, the SEC adopted Rule 147(a) which removed many of the restrictions to modernize the Rules. For example, companies would have to do business and have its principal place of business in the state where the offering is sold, and not necessarily where offered per the prior rule.[133]
Iran
[edit]As of 2024 33 crowdfunding permits were issued for financial institutions.[134]
Benefits and risks
[edit]Benefits for the creator
[edit]Crowdfunding campaigns provide producers with several benefits, beyond the strict financial gains.[135] The following are the non-financial benefits of crowdfunding.
- Profile – a compelling project can raise a producer's profile and provide a boost to their reputation.
- Marketing – project initiators can show there is an audience and market for their project. In the case of an unsuccessful campaign, it provides good market feedback. It also has a signal value: observing consumers, consumers who are not involved with original crowdfunding campaign, show a strong preference for crowdfunded products compared to those funded with alternative means [136]
- Signal value - Consumers generally perceive crowdfunded products as higher quality, except in high-risk domains where the identified effect reverses due to perceptions that the crowdfunding model lacks sufficient professionalism to mitigate risk. Consumers believe that supporting crowdfunding reduces inequality in the marketplace. The positive crowdfunding effect is particularly strong among consumers who value social equality.[137]
- Audience engagement – crowdfunding creates a forum where project initiators can engage with their audiences. An audience can engage in the production process by the following progress through updates from the creators and sharing feedback via comment features on the project's crowdfunding page.
- Feedback – offering pre-release access to content or the opportunity to beta-test content to project backers as a part of the funding incentives provides the project initiators with instant access to good market testing feedback.
There are also financial benefits to the creator. For one, crowdfunding allows creators to attain low-cost capital. Traditionally, a creator would need to look at "personal savings, home equity loans, personal credit cards, friends and family members, angel investors, and venture capitalists." With crowdfunding, creators can find funders from around the world, sell both their product and equity, and benefit from increased information flow. Additionally, crowdfunding that supports pre-buying allows creators to obtain early feedback on the product.[16] Another potential positive effect is the propensity of groups to "produce an accurate aggregate prediction" about market outcomes as identified by the author James Surowiecki in his book The Wisdom of Crowds, thereby placing financial backing behind ventures likely to succeed.
Proponents also identify a potential outcome of crowdfunding as an exponential increase in available venture capital. One report claims that if every American family gave one percent of their investable assets to crowdfunding, $300 billion (a 10X increase) would come into venture capital.[138] Proponents also cite that a benefit for companies receiving crowdfunding support is that they retain control of their operations, as voting rights are not conveyed along with ownership when crowdfunding. As part of his response to the Amanda Palmer Kickstarter controversy, Steve Albini expressed his supportive views of crowdfunding for musicians, explaining: "I've said many times that I think they're part of the new way bands and their audience interact and they can be a fantastic resource, enabling bands to do things essentially in cooperation with their audience." Albini described the concept of crowdfunding as "pretty amazing".[139]
Risks and barriers for the creator
[edit]Crowdfunding, while gaining popularity, also comes with a number of potential risks or barriers.[5] For the creator, as well as the investor, studies show that crowdfunding contains "high levels of risk, uncertainty, and information asymmetry."[16]
- Reputation – failure to meet campaign goals or to generate interest results in a public failure. Reaching financial goals and successfully gathering substantial public support but being unable to deliver on a project for some reason can severely negatively impact one's reputation.
- Intellectual property (IP) protection – many Interactive Digital Media developers and content producers are reluctant to publicly announce the details of a project before production due to concerns about idea theft and protecting their IP from plagiarism.[5] Creators who engage in crowdfunding are required to release their product to the public in early stages of funding and development, exposing themselves to the risk of copy by competitors.[16]
- Donor exhaustion – there is a risk that if the same network of supporters is reached out to multiple times, that network will eventually cease to supply necessary support.
- Public fear of abuse – concern among supporters that without a regulatory framework, the likelihood of a scam or an abuse of funds is high. The concern may become a barrier to public engagement.
- Lack of participation – It is seen that some stories are more likely to get picked up than others based on the story. It is easy to get support if you "just tell a story."[140]
For crowdfunding of equity stock purchases, there is some research in social psychology that indicates that, like in all investments, people don't always do their due diligence to determine if it is a sound investment before investing, which leads to making investment decisions based on emotion rather than financial logic.[141] By using crowdfunding, creators also forgo potential support and value that a single angel investor or venture capitalist might offer. Likewise, crowdfunding requires that creators manage their investors. This can be time-consuming and financially burdensome as the number of investors in the crowd rises.[16] Crowdfunding draws a crowd: investors and other interested observers who follow the progress, or lack of progress, of a project. Sometimes it proves easier to raise the money for a project than to make the project a success. Managing communications with many possibly disappointed investors and supporters can be a substantial, and potentially diverting, task.[142]
Some of the most popular fundraising drives are for commercial companies that use the process to reach customers and at the same time market their products and services. This favors companies like microbreweries and specialist restaurants – in effect creating a "club" of people who are customers as well as investors. In the US in 2015, new rules from the SEC to regulate equity crowdfunding will mean that larger businesses with more than 500 investors and more than $25 million in assets will have to file reports like a public company. The Wall Street Journal commented: "It is all the pain of an IPO without the benefits of the IPO."[143] These two trends may mean crowdfunding is most suited to small consumer-facing companies rather than tech start-ups.
Benefits for the investor
[edit]There are several ways in which a well-regulated crowdfunding platform may provide the possibility of attractive returns for investors:
- Crowdfunding reduces costs – The platforms reduce search costs and transaction costs, which allows higher participation in the market. Many individual investors would otherwise have a hard time investing in early-stage companies because of the difficulty of identifying a company directly and the high costs of joining an Angel Group or doing it through a professional venture capital firm.
- Current early-stage investing is not efficient – Venture capital firms often neglect the consumer sector and focus mainly on high-tech companies. Crowdfunding opens up some of these neglected markets to individual investors. Crowdfunding does not make sense in every industry, but for some, like retail and consumer, it does.
- Value of new investors – Investors can add value to companies when they act as brand advocates and they can even be used as a focus group. Crowdfunding allows individual investors to be a part of the company they invest in.[144]
Risks for the investor
[edit]On crowdfunding platforms, the problem of information asymmetry is exacerbated due to the reduced ability of the investor to conduct due diligence.[40] Early-stage investing is typically localized, as the costs of conducting due diligence before making investment decisions and the costs of monitoring after investing both rise with distance. However, this trend is not observed on crowdfunding platforms – these platforms are not geographically constrained and bring in investors from near and far.[39][145] On non-equity or reward-based platforms, investors try to mitigate this risk by using the amount of capital raised as a signal of performance or quality. On equity-based platforms, crowdfunding syndicates reduce information asymmetry through dual channels – through portfolio diversification and better due diligence as in the case of offline early-stage investing, but also by allowing lead investors with more information and better networks to lead crowds of backers to make investment decisions.[40][146][147]
Crowdfunding platforms also carry the risk of money laundering.[148][149]
Issues in medical crowdfunding
[edit]The rise of crowdfunding for medical expenses is considered, in large part, a symptom of an inadequate and failing healthcare system in countries such as the United States.[150][151] Healthcare through crowdfunding relies on perceived deservingness and worth, which reproduces unequal outcomes in access.[151]
Rob Solomon, the CEO of GoFundMe, has commented on this: "The system is terrible. It needs to be rethought and retooled. Politicians are failing us. Health care companies are failing us. Those are realities. I don't want to mince words here. We are facing a huge potential tragedy. We provide relief for a lot of people. But there are people who are not getting relief from us or from the institutions that are supposed to be there. We shouldn't be the solution to a complex set of systemic problems."[152]
There are ethical issues in medical crowdfunding. Firstly, there is a loss of patient privacy.[153] Crowdfunding campaigns are generally more financially successful if extensive personal information is disclosed to the public.[153] Secondly, the oversight regarding the veracity of claims is generally limited.[153][154] For instance, physicians are obliged to uphold the ethics of the medical profession, such as patient confidentiality, but this runs in conflict with dishonest crowdfunding efforts.[154] Thirdly, medical crowdfunding perpetuates inequalities—associated with variables such as gender, class, and race—in access to healthcare.[151][153] For instance, there's a socioeconomic gradient with medical fundraising, in which a higher socioeconomic status coincides with higher donation amounts, higher proportions of fundraising targets reached, higher numbers of donations received, and more shares on social media.[155] Finally, the use of medical crowdfunding might reduce the impetus to reform failing infrastructures to healthcare.[153]
See also
[edit]- Angel investor
- Assurance contract
- Business models for open-source software
- Comparison of crowdfunding services
- Crowdfunding in video games
- Cooperative banking
- Equity crowdfunding
- Fan-funded music
- Group buying
- Internet begging
- List of highest-funded crowdfunding projects
- List of highest-funded equity crowdfunding projects
- Microfinance
- One Spark
- Participatory budgeting
- Peer-to-peer lending
- Platform cooperative
- Private equity
- Revenue-based financing
- Seed money
- Threshold pledge system
References
[edit]- ^ Goran Calic, "Crowdfunding", The SAGE Encyclopedia of the Internet, 2018
- ^ "Definition of Crowdfunding". www.merriam-webster.com. Retrieved October 23, 2017.
- ^ a b Mollick, E. (2014). The dynamics of crowdfunding: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Venturing. Vol. 29, pp. 1–16.
- ^ "Cambridge Judge Business School: Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance". Cambridge Judge Business School. Jbs.cam.ac.uk. Retrieved July 24, 2015.
- ^ a b c "Oxford Dictionary Definition of Crowdfunding". Archived from the original on January 31, 2013. Retrieved July 23, 2014.
- ^ a b c d e "Crowdfunding: Transforming Customers Into Investors Through Innovative Service Platforms" (PDF). Retrieved February 7, 2013.
- ^ Agrawal, Ajay; Catalini, Christian; Goldfarb, Avi (2015). "Crowdfunding: Geography, Social Networks, and the Timing of Investment Decisions". Journal of Economics & Management Strategy. 24 (2): 253–274. doi:10.1111/jems.12093. ISSN 1530-9134. S2CID 154926205.
- ^ Gleasure, Rob; Feller, Joseph (2016). "Emerging technologies and the democratisation of financial services: A metatriangulation of crowdfunding research". Information and Organization. 26 (4): 101–115. doi:10.1016/j.infoandorg.2016.09.001.
- ^ Laurell, Christofer; Sandström, Christian; Suseno, Yuliani (April 2019). "Assessing the interplay between crowdfunding and sustainability in social media". Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 141: 117–127. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.015.
- ^ Cara, Ed (September 12, 2018). "Crowdfunding Sites Are Putting Money in the Pockets of Cancer Quacks, Report Finds". Gizmodo. Retrieved December 10, 2018.
- ^ Newman, Melanie (September 12, 2018). "Is cancer fundraising fuelling quackery?". BMJ. 362 k3829. doi:10.1136/bmj.k3829. ISSN 1756-1833. S2CID 52193362.
- ^ "Crowdfunding: The fuel for cancer quackery". Science-Based Medicine. September 17, 2018. Retrieved January 12, 2019.
- ^ Mole, Beth (September 20, 2018). "Crowdfunding raises millions for quack cancer remedies, like coffee enemas". Ars Technica. Retrieved January 12, 2019.
- ^ a b Olaf Simons (March 10, 2016). "Crowdsourcing Comte". positivists.org. Retrieved March 10, 2016.
- ^ a b "The Statue of Liberty and America's crowdfunding pioneer". BBC Online. April 24, 2013. Retrieved April 28, 2013.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j Agrawal, Ajay; Catalini, Christian; Goldfarb, Avi (June 2013). "Some Simple Economics of Crowdfunding". NBER Working Paper No. 19133. doi:10.3386/w19133.
- ^ Golemis, Dean (September 23, 1997). "British Band's U.s. Tour Is Computer-generated". Chicago Tribune.
- ^ a b Masters, Tim (November 5, 2011). "Marillion 'understood where the internet was going early on'". BBC News. Retrieved September 3, 2013.
- ^ "Marillion fans to the rescue". BBC News. May 11, 2001.
- ^ "The Vegan Winter 1992". Issuu. December 1992. Retrieved January 2, 2020.
- ^ Andrew Rodgers (June 11, 1999). "Filmmaker Uses Web To Help Finance, Cast Movie". Chicago Tribune. Archived from the original on September 26, 2012. Retrieved January 7, 2013.
- ^ Blender Foundation Launches Campaign to Open Blender Source Archived November 28, 2020, at the Wayback Machine on linuxtoday (July 22, 2002)
- ^ 'Free Blender Fund' campaign archived 2002
- ^ Membership "People can subscribe to become Foundation Member. Members who subscribe during the campaign period, get additional benefits for their support. During campaign: – Costs: minimum one time fee of 50 euros (or US$50)" (archived 2002)
- ^ "FAQ". Blender Foundation. Archived from the original on January 3, 2019. Retrieved January 3, 2019.
- ^ Dalla Chiesa, Claudio; Handke, Christian (2022). "The art of crowdfunding arts and innovation: the cultural economic perspective". Journal of Cultural Economics. 46 (4): 573–607. doi:10.1007/s10824-022-09444-9.
- ^ Whiteley, Sheila; Rambarran, Shara (2016). The Oxford Handbook of Music and Virtuality. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-932128-5.
- ^ "A Brief History Of Crowdfunding" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on January 25, 2016. Retrieved July 27, 2014.
- ^ "Can You Spare a Quarter? Crowdfunding Sites Turn Fans into Patrons of the Arts". Wharton. December 8, 2010.
- ^ Malika Zouhali-Worrall (November 2011). "Comparison of Crowdfunding Websites". Inc.com.
- ^ Tiwari, Gaurav. "भारत में सेल्फ पब्लिकेशन और प्रिंट ऑन डिमांड: पब्लिकेशन उद्योग की क्रांति". Punjab Kesari.
- ^ "Crowdfunding's earliest citation".
- ^ a b c Hollas, J. (2013). Is crowdfunding now a threat to traditional finance? Corporate Finance Review. Vol 18, issue 1, pp. 27–31.
- ^ a b Catherine Clifford (May 19, 2014). "Crowdfunding Generates More Than $60,000 an Hour (Infographic)". Entrepreneur. Entrepreneur Media, Inc. Retrieved May 25, 2014.
- ^ "Crowd funding: An emerging trend in Bollywood". The Times of India. Retrieved August 12, 2012.
- ^ "Crowdfunding as the future of science funding?". The Science Exchange Blog. May 27, 2012. Retrieved August 19, 2012.
- ^ a b Hollow, Matthew (April 20, 2013). "Crowdfunding and Civic Society in Europe: A Profitable Partnership?". Open Citizenship. Retrieved April 29, 2013.
- ^ Ordanini, A.; Miceli, L.; Pizzetti, M.; Parasuraman, A. (2011). "Crowd-funding: Transforming customers into investors through innovative service platforms". Journal of Service Management. 22 (4): 443. doi:10.1108/09564231111155079. (also available as Scribd document Archived March 29, 2016, at the Wayback Machine)
- ^ a b Agrawal, Ajay; Catalini, Christian; Goldfarb, Avi (January 1, 2014). "Some Simple Economics of Crowdfunding" (PDF). Innovation Policy and the Economy. 14 (1): 63–97. doi:10.1086/674021. hdl:1721.1/108043. ISSN 1531-3468. S2CID 16085029.
- ^ a b c Agrawal, Ajay; Catalini, Christian; Goldfarb, Avi (February 25, 2015). "Are Syndicates the Killer App of Equity Crowdfunding?". Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2569988. hdl:1721.1/103355. S2CID 37659400. SSRN 2569988.
{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires|journal=(help) - ^ "Der Treasurer". cfo-insight.com. Archived from the original on April 26, 2013.
- ^ "SEC.gov | Regulation Crowdfunding". www.sec.gov. Retrieved October 24, 2021.
- ^ Catalini, Christian; Gans, Joshua S. (March 19, 2018). "Initial Coin Offerings and the Value of Crypto Tokens". Working Paper Series. doi:10.3386/w24418.
{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires|journal=(help) - ^ a b Tapscott, Don; Tapscott, Alex (May 2016). The Blockchain Revolution: How the Technology Behind Bitcoin is Changing Money, Business, and the World. Portfolio/Penguin. pp. 82–83, 128, 181, 245–246. ISBN 978-0-670-06997-2.
- ^ Popper, Nathan (May 21, 2016). "A Venture Fund With Plenty of Virtual Capital, but No Capitalist". The New York Times. Archived from the original on May 27, 2016. Retrieved May 22, 2016.
- ^ "The DAO of accrue: A new, automated investment fund has attracted stacks of digital money". The Economist. May 21, 2016. Retrieved May 23, 2016.
- ^ Waterss, Richard (May 17, 2016). "Automated company raises equivalent of $120M in digital currency". Financial Times. Retrieved May 23, 2016.
- ^ Allison, Ian (April 30, 2016). "Ethereum reinvents companies with launch of The DAO". International Business Times. Retrieved May 1, 2016.
- ^ Ian Fraser for Unquoted. May 1, 2015 Crowdfunding Part 3: The P2P lenders Archived July 20, 2014, at the Wayback Machine
- ^ a b c d David M. Freedman and Matthew R. Nutting. A Brief History of Crowdfunding Archived January 25, 2016, at the Wayback Machine. Updated June 22, 2015
- ^ a b Bill Payne for Gust. May 4, 2015 US Crowdfunding in 2014
- ^ "Nesta Annual Review 2014–2015" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on December 22, 2015. Retrieved August 1, 2015.
- ^ "How to Succeed in Crowdfunding Your Legal Claim". Invest4Justice. Archived from the original on November 21, 2015. Retrieved November 3, 2015.
- ^ Randazzo, Sara (August 4, 2016). "Litigation Funding Moves Into Mainstream". The Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved February 2, 2017.
- ^ "The Beginners Guide To Crowdfunding". milaap.org. Retrieved April 16, 2018.
- ^ "Q&A: Rizikitoto's Suraya Shivji, 17, crowd-funds for African orphans". Times-Standard. Archived from the original on January 10, 2015. Retrieved January 10, 2015.
- ^ The future of fundraising: Is crowdfunding the wave of the future? (2016). Third Sector. October 1, 2016. 29.
- ^ Choy, Katherine; Schlagwein, Daniel (2016), "Crowdsourcing for a better world: On the relation between IT affordances and donor motivations in charitable crowdfunding", Information Technology & People, 29 (1): 221–247, doi:10.1108/ITP-09-2014-0215, hdl:1959.4/unsworks_38196, S2CID 12352130
- ^ Xu, Larry Zhiming (2018). "Will a digital camera cure your sick puppy? Modality and category effects in donation-based crowdfunding". Telematics and Informatics. 35 (7): 1914–1924. doi:10.1016/j.tele.2018.06.004. S2CID 53015852.
- ^ Davies, Rodrigo (2015). "Three provocations for civic crowdfunding". Information, Communication & Society. 18 (3): 342–355. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2014.989878. hdl:1721.1/123437. S2CID 148641056.
- ^ Belleflamme, P.; Omrani, N.; Peitz, M. (March 2015). "The Economics of Crowdfunding Platforms" (PDF). Information Economics and Policy. 33: 11–28. doi:10.1016/j.infoecopol.2015.08.003. hdl:2078.1/174808. S2CID 10924359.
- ^ Snyder, Jeremy; Mathers, Annalise; Crooks, Valorie (2016). "Fund my treatment!: A call for ethics-focused social science research into the use of crowdfunding for medical care". Social Science & Medicine. 169: 27–30. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.09.024. PMID 27665200.
- ^ Global Crowdfunding Volumes Rise 81% In 2012, August 4, 2013, The Huffington Post, Retrieved at September 7, 2013
- ^ The Rise of Crowdfunding October 28, 2015, MyPrivateBanking Research
- ^ Fischer, Matthias (2021). Fintech Business Models. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. pp. 115, 116. ISBN 978-3-11-070450-1.
- ^ "2,000 Global Crowdfunding Sites to Choose from by 2016". The Huffington Post. October 23, 2015.
- ^ "80 Crowdfunding Statistics You Must See: 2021 Platforms, Impact & Campaign Data". April 19, 2021.
- ^ "These Are the Top 10 Crowdfunding Platforms". March 11, 2021.
- ^ "Selfstarter". GitHub.
- ^ Goodman, Michelle. "Crowdfunding Without Kickstarter". Entrepreneur. Retrieved April 17, 2023.
- ^ a b Gleasure, Rob; Feller, Joseph (2016). "Does Heart or Head Rule Donor Behaviors in Charitable Crowdfunding Markets?". International Journal of Electronic Commerce. 20 (4): 499. doi:10.1080/10864415.2016.1171975.
- ^ a b c Saxton, Gregory D; Wang, Lili (2013). "The Social Network Effect". Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. 43 (5): 850. doi:10.1177/0899764013485159.
- ^ Jack Preston (October 13, 2014). "How Marillion Pioneered Crowd Funding".
- ^ "IR35 and the PCG crowdfund". IPSE. Archived from the original on July 28, 2017. Retrieved July 25, 2017.
- ^ Don Heckman (February 10, 2008). "Making fans a part of the inner circle". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved October 7, 2011.
- ^ "Now this is known as Crowd Funding". Tampa Bay Times. October 18, 1996. p. 74. Retrieved May 15, 2022.
- ^ "Archived copy" (PDF). varietyultimate.com. Archived from the original (PDF) on October 16, 2020. Retrieved May 15, 2022.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link) - ^ Gourlay, Dom (December 2, 2004). "Wanna Go VIP? Electric Eel Shock'll show you the way..." Drowned in Sound. Archived from the original on October 18, 2012. Retrieved June 9, 2012.
- ^ "Electric Eel Shock becomes the most established artist to reach US$50,000 on SellaBand". It's All Happening. June 24, 2008. Archived from the original on November 15, 2012.
- ^ Bulkley, Kate (November 24, 2012). "Is crowd-funding the future for documentaries?". The Guardian. Archived from the original on November 5, 2013. Retrieved December 13, 2012.
- ^ "Crowd-Funding FAQ". Spanner Films. July 13, 2009. Retrieved December 13, 2012.
- ^ Baker, Chris (March 31, 2015). "Fans Have Dropped $77M on This Guy's Buggy, Half-Built Game". Wired.
- ^ Dredge, Stuart (April 17, 2014). "Kickstarter's biggest hits: Crowdfunding now sets the trends". The Guardian.
- ^ "Amanda Palmer Raises $1.2 Million On Kickstarter, And The Crowd Goes Wild". techdirt.com. June 1, 2012. Retrieved May 3, 2014.
- ^ Dawes, Terry (July 11, 2014). "Pimped Out "Coolest" Cooler Set to Break Kickstarter Record". Cantech Letter.
- ^ Gertjan Menten (October 15, 2015). "The business behind crowdfunding". Econible. Archived from the original on October 14, 2015. Retrieved October 15, 2015.
- ^ "Zach Braff Addresses Backlash To His Crowdfunded Movie Wish I Was Here". December 13, 2020. Retrieved November 28, 2022.
- ^ a b McMillan, Graeme (March 14, 2013). "Veronica Mars Kickstarter Breaks Records, Raises Over $2M in 12 Hours". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved June 26, 2019.
- ^ Spangler, Todd (April 5, 2019). "Critical Role Crowdfunding Campaign for Animated D&D Series Tops $8.9 Million Raised". Variety. Retrieved June 14, 2019.
- ^ Hughes, William (December 12, 2015). "MST3K breaks Kickstarter records, secures 14 new episodes". News. Retrieved June 26, 2019.
- ^ a b Emanuella Grinberg (December 13, 2015). "'Mystery Science Theater 3000' revival breaks record". CNN. Retrieved June 26, 2019.
- ^ "Why you need to use Backerkit for your crowdfunding campaign". Gadget Flow. Retrieved May 11, 2021.
- ^ "Crowdfunding journalism". idio. May 19, 2009. Archived from the original on May 16, 2009. Retrieved May 15, 2009.
- ^ Helen Pidd (April 14, 2009). "Teenagers' credit note approach to fund £1m film of Clovis Dardentor". Guardian. London. Retrieved August 19, 2012.
- ^ Dell, Kristina (September 4, 2008). "Crowdfunding". Time. Archived from the original on September 10, 2008. Retrieved August 19, 2012.
- ^ TechCrunch "Sponsume lets projects get off the ground with Groupon-style group funding model"
- ^ "TechCrunch 'Grow VC launches, aiming to become the Kiva for tech startups'". Eu.techcrunch.com. February 15, 2010. Retrieved August 19, 2012.
- ^ Prentice, Claire (May 12, 2010). "Cash-strapped entrepreneurs get creative". BBC News. Retrieved August 19, 2012.
- ^ Crowdfunding Rules Could Create Mini-Disclosure Regime WSJ/CFO Journal, October 24, 2013, Emily Chasan
- ^ Kappel, Tim, "Ex Ante Crowdfunding and the Recording Industry: A Model for the U.S.?" in Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review, Vol.29, Issue 3, p.376
- ^ "How to crowdfund your film". Spanner Films. Retrieved August 19, 2012.
- ^ Jens Erik Gould (September 12, 2013). "In Hollywood, Crowdfunding Isn't Just for No-Names". The Financialist. Credit Suisse. Archived from the original on September 16, 2013. Retrieved September 13, 2013.
- ^ Bell, Melissa. "Crowd-sourcing a brand", The Washington Post, March 12, 2011, accessed September 3, 2011.
- ^ "Is Microfinance for You?" Archived May 14, 2012, at the Wayback Machine, SecondAct, April 17, 2012.
- ^ Yurieff, Kaya (March 30, 2017). "Facebook launches personal fundraising tool".
- ^ "Prime Minister hails the rise of 'civic crowdfunding'". GOV.UK.
- ^ Crowdfunding for Emergencies Archived April 24, 2016, at the Wayback Machine, by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
- ^ Masters, Alexander (October 14, 2014). "A plutocratic proposal". Mosaic. The Wellcome Trust. Archived from the original on May 29, 2016. Retrieved July 3, 2016.
- ^ Masters, Alexander (July 2, 2016). "Can crowdfunding really cure cancer? Alexander Masters investigates a pioneering new project". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on July 2, 2016. Retrieved July 3, 2016.
- ^ Davis, M.; Cartwright, L. (2019). "Financing for Society: Assessing the Suitability of Crowdfunding for the Public Sector". baumaninstitute.leeds.ac.uk. doi:10.5518/100/7. Retrieved July 15, 2020.
- ^ O'Connell, Jonathan (June 9, 2013) "Fundrise faces off with skeptical financial services industry over crowd-funded real estate". The Washington Post. Retrieved June 26, 2014.
- ^ Simon, Ruth and Brown, Eliot(June 11, 2014). "Real-Estate Sector Moves Crowdfunding Beyond the Trinkets". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved June 26, 2014 (subscription required).
- ^ "Real Estate Crowdfunding Turns 75". Huffington Post. January 21, 2015.
- ^ "Le crowdfunding va devenir un secteur de poids, à l'image du e-commerce". Archived from the original on December 22, 2015.
- ^ "7 Best Real Estate Crowdfunding Platforms for Investing in 2021". US News. March 9, 2021.
- ^ "The best real estate crowdfunding investment platforms". Business Insider. June 30, 2021.
- ^ "How UAE-based SmartCrowd makes property investment as simple as the stock market". Arabian Business. March 29, 2021.
- ^ "Emerging Trends in Real Estate: New market realities" (PDF). pwc.com. Retrieved August 29, 2017.
- ^ "Entrenching Innovation" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on November 13, 2018. Retrieved January 11, 2018.
- ^ Mike Drummond, "Making it Rain: Seeking Seed Money from the Crowd" Archived June 30, 2013, at the Wayback Machine, Inventors Digest, August 2011
- ^ Simon Brown (July 2011). "Follow the Crowd". Intellectual Property Magazine. Archived from the original on May 16, 2013. Retrieved August 19, 2012.
- ^ Gorbis, Marina (2013). The Nature of the Future: Dispatches from the Socialstructed World. Simon & Schuster. p. 139. ISBN 978-1-4516-4118-9.
- ^ Sauermann, Henry; Franzoni, Chiara; Shafi, Kourosh (March 12, 2018). "Crowdfunding Scientific Research". Working Paper Series. doi:10.3386/w24402. S2CID 158632668.
{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires|journal=(help) - ^ Neel V. Patel (April 24, 2015). "Crowdfunded Science is here". Wired. Retrieved October 4, 2016.
- ^ Nayanah Siva (September 20, 2014). "Crowdfunding medical research picks up the pace". The Lancet. 384 (9948): 1085–1086. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61661-5. PMID 25247220. S2CID 39664203. Retrieved October 4, 2016.
- ^ Mike S. Schaefer; et al. (2016). "Selling Science 2.0". Public Understanding of Science. 27 (5): 496–514. doi:10.1177/0963662516668771. PMC 6041758. PMID 27647666.
- ^ a b c d Hunter, Andrea (February 2015). "Crowdfunding independent and freelance journalism: Negotiating journalistic norms of autonomy and objectivity". New Media & Society. 17 (2): 272–288. doi:10.1177/1461444814558915. S2CID 21039809.
- ^ a b Aitamurto, Tanja (August 2011). "The Impact of Crowdfunding on Journalism". Journalism Practice. 5 (4): 429–445. doi:10.1080/17512786.2010.551018. S2CID 54194660.
- ^ a b "Spot.us is going away, but its legacy inspires new chapters of crowdfunding playbook".
- ^ Jian, Lian; Usher, Nikki (January 2014). "Crowd-Funded Journalism". Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 19 (2): 155–170. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12051.
- ^ Bank, World (2013). "Crowdfunding's Potential for the Developing World".
{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires|journal=(help) - ^ "Rule 506 of Regulation D". U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Retrieved January 1, 2018.
- ^ "Intrastate Offering Exemptions: A Small Entity Compliance Guide for Issuers [1]". www.sec.gov. Retrieved January 1, 2018.
- ^ "فعالیت ۳ سکوی تأمین مالی جمعی آغاز شد". digiato.com. Retrieved November 19, 2024.
- ^ "Crowdfunding in a Canadian Context" (PDF). Canada Media Fund. Archived from the original (PDF) on November 18, 2012. Retrieved February 12, 2013.
- ^ Acar, Oguz A; Dahl, Darren; Fuchs, Christoph; Schreier, Martin (2021). "The Signal Value of Crowdfunded Products". Journal of Marketing Research. 58 (4): 644–661. doi:10.1177/00222437211012451. ISSN 0022-2437. S2CID 234803364. Retrieved July 28, 2021.
- ^ Acar, Oguz A.; Dahl, Darren W.; Fuchs, Christoph; Schreier, Martin (August 2021). "The Signal Value of Crowdfunded Products". Journal of Marketing Research. 58 (4): 644–661. doi:10.1177/00222437211012451. ISSN 0022-2437.
- ^ "Gigaom: What crowdfunding means for the VC business". May 8, 2012. Archived from the original on October 19, 2012. Retrieved October 15, 2012.
- ^ Steve Albini (September 13, 2012). "Re: amanda '$1.2m' palmer wants you to play with her for free". Electrical Audio. Archived from the original (Forum post) on September 22, 2012. Retrieved May 19, 2014.
- ^ Bogle, Ariel (February 25, 2018). "The hidden costs of crowdfunding medical care". ABC News.
- ^ Isenberg, Daniel (April 23, 2012). "The Road to Crowdfunding Hell". Harvard Business Review. Retrieved August 19, 2012.
- ^ Jenna Wortham (September 17, 2012). "Success of Crowdfunding Puts Pressure on Entrepreneurs". The New York Times. Retrieved September 18, 2012.
- ^ Mims, Christopher. "Tech Startup Crowdfunding Isn't All It's Cracked Up to Be". The Wall Street Journaldate= 7 December 2015.
- ^ Caldbeck, Ryan (April 1, 2012). "3 Reasons Crowdfunding Is Good For Investors". Seeking Alpha. Retrieved November 30, 2016.
- ^ Agrawal, Ajay; Catalini, Christian; Goldfarb, Avi (June 1, 2015). "Crowdfunding: Geography, Social Networks, and the Timing of Investment Decisions" (PDF). Journal of Economics & Management Strategy. 24 (2): 253–274. doi:10.1111/jems.12093. ISSN 1530-9134. S2CID 154926205.
- ^ Kang L, Jiang Q, Tan C-H. "Remarkable advocates: An investigation of geographic distance and social capital for crowdfunding". Information & Management. 2017;54(3):336–348. doi:10.1016/j.im.2016.09.001.
- ^ Catalini, Christian; Hui, Xiang (July 9, 2018). "Online Syndicates and Startup Investment". National Bureau of Economic Research. Working Paper Series. doi:10.3386/w24777. S2CID 229298169.
- ^ Habib, Ahsan (February 28, 2020). "ACFCS Special Contributor Report: Crowdfunding-An unorthodox way of Money Laundering? Definitely…maybe…". Association of Certified Financial Crime Specialists. Retrieved April 15, 2022.
- ^ Robock, Zachary (2014). "The Risk of Money Laundering Through Crowdfunding: A Funding Portal's Guide to Compliance and Crime Fighting". Michigan Business & Entrepreneurial Law Review. 4 (1): 113. doi:10.36639/mbelr.4.1.risk. S2CID 166276044.
- ^ Sisler, J. (January 9, 2012). "Crowdfunding for medical expenses". Canadian Medical Association Journal. 184 (2): E123 – E124. doi:10.1503/cmaj.109-4084. PMC 3273528. PMID 22231688.
- ^ a b c Berliner, Lauren S.; Kenworthy, Nora J. (August 2017). "Producing a worthy illness: Personal crowdfunding amidst financial crisis". Social Science & Medicine. 187: 233–242. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.02.008. PMID 28274601.
- ^ Young, Jeffrey (June 19, 2019) [June 10, 2019]. "Life And Debt: Stories From Inside America's GoFundMe Health Care System". HuffPost.
- ^ a b c d e Dressler, Gabrielle; Kelly, Sarah A (July 2018). "Ethical implications of medical crowdfunding: the case of Charlie Gard". Journal of Medical Ethics. 44 (7): 453–457. doi:10.1136/medethics-2017-104717. PMID 29728452. S2CID 19118282.
- ^ a b Young, Michael J.; Scheinberg, Ethan (April 25, 2017). "The Rise of Crowdfunding for Medical Care". JAMA. 317 (16): 1623–1624. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.3078. PMID 28334321.
- ^ Cheng, Cheng; Ren, Yifei (January 2024). "The paradox of seeking help: Socioeconomic inequality in medical crowdfunding in the era of the mobile internet". Chinese Journal of Sociology. 10 (1): 100–130. doi:10.1177/2057150X241230163.
Further reading
[edit]- "Crowdfunding and Civic Society in Europe: A Profitable Partnership?" Open Citizenship, vol. 4, no. 1. (2013).
- Crowdfunding for Emergencies Archived April 24, 2016, at the Wayback Machine by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, 2015.
- Dynamics of Crowdfunding: Determinants of Success and Failure by Ethan Mollick, examines what causes individual projects to succeed or fail.
- "Is There an eBay for Ideas?" European Management Review, 2011
- The Geography of Crowdfunding, NET Institute Working Paper No. 10-08, Oct 2010
- Ex Ante Crowdfunding and the Recording Industry: A Model for the U.S.?
- Crowdfunding and the Federal Securities Laws by C. Steven Bradford
External links
[edit]
Media related to Crowdfunding at Wikimedia Commons
Crowdfunding
View on GrokipediaDefinition and Fundamentals
Core Principles and Mechanisms
Crowdfunding relies on the principle of aggregating numerous small financial contributions from a diverse group of individuals, typically facilitated through online platforms, to fund specific projects, ventures, or causes that might otherwise lack access to traditional capital sources. This approach democratizes funding by bypassing conventional intermediaries like banks or venture capitalists, enabling creators to appeal directly to potential supporters worldwide. The underlying mechanism leverages network effects and social proof, where early pledges signal viability and encourage further participation, often resulting in exponential growth in backing if momentum builds. Empirical analyses indicate that campaigns achieving 30% of their funding goal within the first week are significantly more likely to succeed, highlighting the importance of initial traction in sustaining contributor interest.[13] At its core, the process begins with a creator establishing a campaign on a dedicated platform, defining a clear funding objective, timeline, and proposed use of funds, which promotes transparency as a foundational principle to build trust among backers. Platforms act as intermediaries, handling pledge collection, verification, and disbursement while enforcing rules such as all-or-nothing funding models—where funds are only transferred if the goal is met by the deadline—or flexible models allowing retention of partial funds. This structure mitigates risk for contributors by aligning payouts with demonstrated demand, as evidenced by platforms like Kickstarter, which reported over $7 billion raised across 200,000+ projects by 2023 under such mechanisms. Contributors, in turn, evaluate campaigns based on presented evidence of feasibility, often including prototypes, videos, or progress updates, fostering a merit-based selection akin to market validation.[14][15][16] Key mechanisms include real-time progress tracking and community interaction tools, such as comment sections and update feeds, which enable iterative feedback and adjustment, reducing information asymmetry between creators and backers. Platforms typically charge fees—around 5% of funds raised plus payment processing costs—for these services, incentivizing efficient campaign design to maximize net proceeds. Success hinges on viral dissemination via social media and personal networks, with studies showing that campaigns with compelling narratives and visual media outperform others by drawing in non-traditional investors motivated by altruism, innovation support, or anticipated returns. However, this reliance on crowd discernment introduces variability, as unverified claims can propagate, underscoring the principle of due diligence by participants despite platform moderation efforts.[17][18][6]Distinctions from Traditional Financing
Crowdfunding differs from traditional financing primarily in the structure and source of capital, aggregating numerous small contributions from a diverse pool of individuals—often via online platforms—rather than relying on a limited number of institutional lenders or investors such as banks or venture capital firms.[19][3] This dispersion reduces dependence on gatekeepers who impose stringent criteria like collateral, proven revenue streams, or extensive due diligence, enabling access for early-stage ventures or creators lacking established credit histories.[20][21] In traditional financing, bank loans typically demand repayment with interest and collateral, while venture capital often entails significant equity dilution and investor oversight, including potential board representation or veto rights on strategic decisions.[22] Crowdfunding models, by contrast, vary by type: donation- and reward-based forms offer no financial return to backers, emphasizing intrinsic motivations like altruism or product access, whereas equity- and debt-based variants provide shares or interest but generally without the control premiums associated with venture capital.[23][24] This structure preserves greater founder autonomy, as platforms facilitate term-setting without mandatory concessions to dominant investors.[25] Regulatory frameworks further delineate the approaches: traditional financing operates under established banking and securities laws with rigorous compliance, whereas crowdfunding benefits from tailored exemptions, such as the U.S. JOBS Act of 2012, which permitted non-accredited investors to participate in equity raises up to specified limits, broadening participation but introducing platforms' self-regulatory roles in vetting campaigns.[26] Crowdfunding campaigns often incorporate all-or-nothing funding thresholds to mitigate partial-financing risks, a mechanic absent in conventional loans, and leverage public visibility for market validation, where backer engagement signals demand viability—contrasting the opaque negotiations of private placements.[6][27]| Aspect | Crowdfunding | Traditional Financing (e.g., Bank Loans, Venture Capital) |
|---|---|---|
| Capital Sources | Many small contributions from individuals, often online.[3] | Few large institutional or accredited investors.[22] |
| Accessibility | Lower barriers; suitable for unproven ventures without collateral.[20] | Requires credit history, assets, or traction; excludes many startups.[21] |
| Founder Control | Higher retention; limited investor influence.[25] | Often involves equity stakes, board seats, or covenants.[24] |
| Validation Mechanism | Public campaigns test market interest via pledges.[6] | Private evaluations by experts; no broad signaling.[23] |
| Speed and Costs | Rapid deployment but platform fees (5-10%); marketing intensive.[27] | Lengthy approvals; lower fees but higher interest or dilution.[19] |
Historical Development
Pre-Digital Precursors
Public appeals for collective funding predate digital platforms, manifesting through print media, community subscriptions, and organized loan funds to support projects ranging from literature to public monuments. In the 18th century, subscription models enabled authors and publishers to secure advance commitments from potential buyers, effectively crowdfunding book production; for instance, Alexander Pope's 1713-1720 translation of Homer's Iliad relied on approximately 750 subscribers paying £5 to £6 each, generating sufficient capital to cover printing costs without traditional patronage.[30] Similar mechanisms funded artistic and scientific endeavors, as seen in the 1850 souscription for philosopher Auguste Comte, where supporters contributed to his personal and intellectual sustenance amid financial hardship, yielding an annual subsidy of up to £200 by 1852 through ongoing pledges.[31] Lending-based precursors emerged in Ireland during the early 18th century, with Jonathan Swift instrumental in establishing loan funds around 1720 that pooled small deposits from the public to provide collateral-free microloans to the impoverished, amassing over 18 such funds by 1800 and disbursing loans totaling £1.2 million by the mid-19th century.[32] These initiatives paralleled modern peer-to-peer lending by democratizing capital access beyond elite institutions. A landmark donation-driven campaign occurred in 1885, when newspaper magnate Joseph Pulitzer used his New York World to solicit contributions for the Statue of Liberty's pedestal, which faced a funding shortfall; his March 16 appeal generated over 120,000 donations—mostly under $1—raising $102,000 in five months from ordinary citizens, marking one of the earliest mass-media mobilizations for public infrastructure.[33][34][35] Such pre-digital efforts relied on physical distribution of pamphlets, newspapers, and personal networks for outreach, contrasting with later internet-scale virality but sharing core principles of dispersed voluntary contributions incentivized by communal benefit, recognition, or modest returns. Earlier maritime ventures from the 13th to 18th centuries involved traders pooling resources for shipping expeditions, with investors receiving profit shares proportional to stakes, akin to equity crowdfunding.[30] These analogs highlight crowdfunding's roots in mutual aid and speculative enterprise, unmediated by centralized finance yet constrained by geographic and informational limits.[36]Emergence in the Internet Age (1990s–2000s)
The proliferation of internet access in the 1990s enabled early forms of online funding appeals, allowing creators to bypass traditional intermediaries like banks and record labels by directly reaching supporters through email lists and rudimentary websites. In 1997, British progressive rock band Marillion conducted one of the first documented internet-based crowdfunding efforts, raising $60,000 from approximately 3,900 fans to finance a North American tour that major labels had refused to support due to perceived low commercial viability.[37][38] This campaign relied on the band's pre-existing fan network and demonstrated the potential of digital tools to aggregate micro-contributions, though it lacked formalized platforms or standardized mechanisms.[39] Building on such ad-hoc initiatives, the early 2000s saw the development of dedicated platforms that structured these appeals into repeatable models. ArtistShare, launched in 2001 by musician Brian Camelio, became the first online crowdfunding site, focusing on fan-funding for artistic projects—primarily music—where backers received exclusive content, credits, or early access in return.[32][40] A notable early success was jazz composer Maria Schneider's funding of her album Concert in the Garden through ArtistShare, which raised sufficient capital to self-produce the recording and later earned a Grammy Award for Best Large Jazz Ensemble Album in 2004.[40] The mid-2000s marked further diversification, with platforms introducing specialized models amid growing broadband adoption and social networking. In 2005, Kiva launched as a pioneer in debt-based crowdfunding, facilitating microloans from individual lenders to entrepreneurs in developing countries, amassing over $1 billion in loans by aggregating small $25 contributions via its website.[41] Sellaband, established in 2006, targeted musicians by offering equity-like fan investments for album production, requiring $50,000 thresholds for deal activation and providing backers with royalties upon success.[41] That same year, the term "crowdfunding" was coined by forum user Michael Sullivan on the Something Awful website, encapsulating the concept of soliciting funds from a large online crowd.[41] By the late 2000s, reward-based platforms proliferated, emphasizing perks over equity or debt to incentivize participation. Indiegogo, founded in 2008, broadened access to non-music projects, enabling creators to pitch ideas like gadgets and films to global audiences with flexible funding options.[41] Kickstarter followed in 2009, enforcing all-or-nothing funding goals to ensure project viability, and quickly gained traction with campaigns such as the Pebble smartwatch prototype, which raised over $10 million—highlighting the model's scalability as internet penetration exceeded 25% globally.[41] These developments were causally tied to technological enablers like secure online payments (e.g., PayPal's expansion) and Web 2.0 interactivity, which reduced transaction costs and amplified viral sharing, though early efforts often succeeded only among niche communities with loyal followings.[41][30]Expansion and Institutionalization (2010s)
The 2010s witnessed a surge in crowdfunding activity, driven by maturing platforms and broader internet accessibility, with global campaigns reaching over 6.4 million by 2018 and funds raised growing 33.7 percent that year alone.[42] Reward-based models, exemplified by Kickstarter's funding of projects in technology, arts, and product design, dominated early expansion, enabling creators to validate market demand prior to full production. This period also saw the proliferation of specialized platforms, including Indiegogo for flexible funding and GoFundMe for personal causes, reflecting diversification beyond initial creative niches into social and charitable applications.[43] Institutionalization accelerated through regulatory reforms that legitimized investment-oriented models, particularly equity and debt crowdfunding, integrating them into formal financial ecosystems. In the United States, the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act, signed into law on April 5, 2012, legalized equity crowdfunding by exempting certain small offerings from full Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) registration, allowing companies to raise capital from both accredited and non-accredited investors via online portals.[44] The SEC's adoption of Regulation Crowdfunding in May 2015, effective the following year, imposed investor protections such as annual offering limits initially capped at $1 million and disclosure requirements, fostering a structured environment that reduced prior legal ambiguities under securities laws.[45] These measures shifted crowdfunding from fringe experimentation to a recognized alternative financing channel, with platforms required to register as funding portals or broker-dealers. Internationally, regulatory patchwork emerged, with the European Union lacking unified rules until later, leading to country-specific frameworks that balanced innovation with investor safeguards. In the United Kingdom, the Financial Conduct Authority authorized equity crowdfunding platforms under tailored exemptions, enabling raises for small businesses while mandating risk warnings.[46] This institutional embedding attracted traditional finance actors; venture capital firms increasingly treated crowdfunding success as a validation signal, correlating it with higher probabilities of subsequent professional funding rounds.[29] Banks and institutional investors began co-investing or providing follow-on debt, viewing platforms as complementary to conventional lending amid post-financial crisis credit constraints. By decade's end, these developments had normalized crowdfunding as a viable mechanism for early-stage capital access, though challenges like fraud risks and uneven global adoption persisted.Recent Evolution (2020–2025)
The COVID-19 pandemic catalyzed a surge in crowdfunding activity starting in early 2020, as individuals and small businesses turned to platforms for emergency relief, medical expenses, and operational continuity amid lockdowns and economic disruptions. Donation-based campaigns proliferated, with platforms like GoFundMe reporting heightened usage for personal and community support; for instance, campaigns launched during the crisis exhibited lower funding goals but achieved substantially higher pledge amounts and backer participation compared to pre-pandemic norms.[47] This shift underscored crowdfunding's role as an agile alternative to strained traditional aid systems, though it also amplified risks such as misinformation in campaigns promoting unverified treatments.[48] Equity and reward-based models saw mixed outcomes, with some studies indicating improved funding success rates for microfinance projects due to increased public empathy and digital engagement.[49] Global market volumes expanded robustly through the period, driven by maturing platforms and broader investor access. The overall crowdfunding sector, valued at approximately USD 17.72 billion in 2024, was projected to reach USD 20.46 billion by 2025, reflecting a 15.5% year-over-year increase amid sustained post-pandemic recovery.[50] Investment crowdfunding in particular demonstrated resilience, with U.S. Regulation Crowdfunding (Reg CF) offerings raising $447.4 million in the first half of 2025 alone—a 60% year-over-year rise—fueled by 570 new issuers and accelerated Regulation A+ growth.[51] Platforms like Kickstarter surpassed 650,000 launched projects by January 2025, highlighting enduring popularity in reward-based funding for creative and tech ventures.[52] Regulatory advancements further institutionalized the model, particularly in equity crowdfunding. In November 2020, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission amended Reg CF rules, elevating the maximum offering limit to $5 million annually and refining investor eligibility to accommodate broader participation while mitigating fraud risks.[53] By 2025, initiatives like the proposed ACCESS Act sought to streamline securities exemptions for small businesses, promoting cross-border harmonization and sector-specific platforms.[54] Blockchain integration emerged as a niche trend, enhancing transparency via smart contracts and tokenized equity, though adoption remained limited compared to traditional platforms due to persistent regulatory scrutiny and volatility in crypto markets.[55] These developments positioned crowdfunding as a viable complement to venture capital, with equity segments capturing over USD 215 million in startup investments by mid-2025.[50]Classification of Crowdfunding Models
Donation-Based Crowdfunding
Donation-based crowdfunding involves the solicitation of voluntary contributions from a large number of individuals via online platforms, without offering donors any financial return, equity stake, or tangible reward in exchange. Funds are typically directed toward charitable causes, personal hardships such as medical expenses or disaster recovery, or community projects where the primary motivation for donors is altruism or social goodwill rather than personal gain.[56][57] This model contrasts with other crowdfunding types by relying on emotional appeals, storytelling, and social proof to drive contributions, often leveraging networks of friends, family, and strangers through social media sharing.[56] Campaigns operate by allowing organizers to create profiles detailing the need, set funding goals, and share multimedia content like videos or photos to build credibility and urgency. Donors contribute small amounts—frequently $10 to $100—via integrated payment processors, with platforms handling verification, disbursement, and sometimes guarantees against fraud. Success depends on factors such as the campaign's narrative coherence, organizer transparency, and viral dissemination, though empirical analyses indicate that only a subset achieves full funding, with many relying on partial contributions to proceed. Platforms impose fees, typically 0-5% of raised amounts plus payment processing charges around 2.9% plus $0.30 per transaction, deducted from donations or absorbed by organizers.[56][58] Prominent platforms include GoFundMe, launched in 2010, which has facilitated over $30 billion in donations from more than 150 million donors through early 2024, primarily for personal and crisis-related appeals. Other examples are Fundly, FundRazr, and the now-defunct CrowdRise, which focus similarly on non-profit and individual causes. In 2023, GoFundMe alone processed $106 million for natural disaster relief, including responses to Maui wildfires and Italian floods, demonstrating the model's capacity for rapid mobilization during emergencies. Globally, donation-based efforts have scaled to billions annually, though data from platforms like these reveal heavy U.S. concentration, with campaigns often funding healthcare gaps where traditional insurance falls short.[59][60][61] Despite its accessibility, the model faces challenges including low average success rates—comparable to broader crowdfunding at around 30-50% goal attainment—and vulnerability to fraud, such as fabricated medical claims or fund misappropriation. Studies identify red flags like vague project descriptions, lack of verifiable evidence, or sudden goal changes as predictors of scams, with reported incidents including impersonation and faked emergencies eroding donor trust. Platforms mitigate risks through identity verification, refund policies, and AI monitoring, but critics note that self-reported outcomes and minimal regulatory oversight in many jurisdictions enable abuse, particularly in personal campaigns where accountability is decentralized. Empirical reviews emphasize that while fraud comprises a small fraction of total activity—estimated below 1% in audited samples—high-profile cases amplify perceptions of unreliability, prompting calls for enhanced transparency without stifling grassroots innovation.[62][10][63]Reward-Based Crowdfunding
Reward-based crowdfunding involves individuals or organizations soliciting small contributions from a large number of backers via online platforms, in exchange for non-monetary rewards such as prototypes, finished products, exclusive experiences, or digital content, without granting equity or debt repayment obligations.[64][65] This model operates on an all-or-nothing basis on platforms like Kickstarter, where funds are only collected if the campaign reaches its predefined goal by a set deadline; failure results in no charges to backers and no funds to creators.[66] In contrast, flexible funding options, as on Indiegogo, allow creators to retain partial funds even if goals are unmet, though this can incentivize lower-quality campaigns.[3] Campaigns typically feature tiered reward structures, where pledge amounts correspond to escalating perks—e.g., $10 for a digital thank-you, $50 for a basic product unit, or $500 for personalized items—aimed at matching backers' willingness to pay while signaling project viability through early momentum.[67] Creators must provide compelling narratives, videos, and prototypes to build trust, as backers bear the risk of non-delivery without legal recourse akin to investors. Success hinges on factors like goal realism (lower goals correlate with higher success), frequent updates, and social proof via endorsements or prior online presence.[11] Empirical analyses indicate overall success rates around 23-36% across platforms, with technology and design categories outperforming others due to tangible prototypes.[68][69] Prominent platforms include Kickstarter, launched in 2009, which has facilitated over $7 billion in pledges to 230,000 successful projects by late 2023, primarily in creative fields like games, films, and gadgets.[70] Indiegogo, operational since 2008, emphasizes flexibility and ongoing funding post-campaign, hosting diverse tech and innovation drives.[71] Global transaction volumes for reward-based models reached approximately $1.1 billion in 2025 projections, reflecting steady growth amid economic pressures but tempered by fulfillment challenges.[72] Benefits include market validation—successful campaigns demonstrate demand before full production—and community engagement, enabling creators to bypass traditional gatekeepers without diluting ownership.[6] However, risks are substantial: over 60% of funded projects face delays or underdelivery, eroding trust and leading to platform refunds or disputes; causal factors include optimistic timelines and underestimation of manufacturing costs.[73] Peer-reviewed studies highlight selection biases in platforms' curation, where pre-screened projects succeed more, yet systemic issues like reward overpromising persist, with backers often motivated by altruism or novelty rather than pure economics.[66][74] Regulatory scrutiny remains limited, as rewards are framed as pre-sales rather than securities, though failures like the Coolest Cooler (raised $13 million but defaulted on deliveries) underscore the need for backer due diligence.[75]Equity-Based Crowdfunding
Equity-based crowdfunding involves companies, typically startups or early-stage ventures, raising capital by offering investors ownership stakes in the form of shares or convertible securities through online platforms, distinguishing it from reward- or donation-based models by providing financial returns tied to the company's performance.[76] Investors contribute funds in exchange for equity, often with minimum investments as low as $100, enabling non-accredited individuals to participate alongside accredited ones, though returns are uncertain and dependent on future valuation or exits like acquisitions or IPOs.[14] This model democratizes access to private equity investments previously limited to venture capital firms or high-net-worth individuals.[77] In the United States, equity crowdfunding was formalized under Title III of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act of 2012, which established Regulation Crowdfunding (Reg CF) rules effective in 2016, allowing issuers to raise up to $5 million annually from both accredited and non-accredited investors via SEC-registered portals, with investor limits scaled by income or net worth (e.g., the greater of $2,500 or 5% of annual income/net worth under $124,000).[45] Compliance requires detailed disclosures on business plans, financials, and risks, audited for raises over $1.235 million, aiming to balance capital access with investor protection amid concerns over fraud in illiquid markets.[78] Globally, similar frameworks exist, such as the UK's Financial Conduct Authority regime since 2014, which has facilitated platforms like Crowdcube raising over £1 billion by 2023.[79] Prominent platforms include StartEngine, Wefunder, and Republic in the US, alongside international ones like Seedrs and Crowdcube, which host campaigns with intermediary services for due diligence and escrow.[80] The global equity crowdfunding platforms market reached approximately $2.14 billion in 2024, projected to grow at a 17.2% CAGR to $7.62 billion by 2032, driven by digital accessibility and regulatory easing.[81] In 2024, US Reg CF equity offerings accounted for $303.4 million (88% of total crowdfunding volume), supporting over 400,000 jobs across 1,750 cities since inception, with capital raised escalating from $19 million in 2016 to $479 million by 2021.[80] Advantages include broader capital access without ceding control to single large investors, built-in marketing via campaigns, and early market validation through backer commitments, potentially yielding high returns if the company succeeds.[82] However, disadvantages encompass ownership dilution for founders, ongoing reporting burdens, and challenges in managing dispersed shareholder bases, which can complicate governance.[83] Compared to debt-based models, equity avoids repayment obligations but exposes investors to total loss if the venture fails, with success rates historically low—only about 10-20% of startups achieving liquidity events.[84] Key risks include high business failure rates (over 90% for early-stage firms), share illiquidity with no secondary markets for most offerings, valuation opacity, and potential conflicts from platform incentives favoring volume over vetting.[76] Investors face amplified losses without diversification mandates under Reg CF, prompting SEC emphasis on suitability assessments, while empirical data underscores the need for due diligence given instances of overvalued campaigns or undisclosed risks.[85][86]Debt-Based Crowdfunding
Debt-based crowdfunding, also known as peer-to-peer lending or crowdlending, enables businesses or individuals to raise capital by securing loans from a large number of individual lenders through online platforms, with the obligation to repay the principal plus interest over a specified term.[87] Unlike equity models, lenders do not receive ownership stakes but instead earn fixed returns via interest payments, typically ranging from 5% to 15% annually depending on borrower creditworthiness and platform risk assessments.[88] Borrowers, often small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), apply for funding by submitting financial details and business plans; platforms use algorithms or manual reviews to assign interest rates and match lenders, who can invest as little as $25 per loan to diversify portfolios.[89] This model originated in the mid-2000s with the launch of Zopa in the United Kingdom in 2005, the first peer-to-peer lending platform connecting individual borrowers and lenders without traditional banks as intermediaries.[30] It expanded to the United States in 2006 via platforms like Prosper and LendingClub, which facilitated unsecured personal and small business loans amid growing dissatisfaction with high banking fees and credit constraints post-2008 financial crisis.[90] Early platforms operated on direct matching but evolved to include secondary markets for loan trading, though regulatory scrutiny increased after defaults highlighted systemic risks, leading to stricter oversight by bodies like the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).[91] Prominent platforms include LendingClub, which originated consumer and business loans totaling over $60 billion by 2023; Funding Circle, focused on SME debt with global operations; and Prosper, emphasizing personal loans with investor returns averaging 5-7% net of fees.[92] These sites charge origination fees of 1-5% to borrowers and service fees of 0.5-1% to lenders, generating revenue while providing tools for credit scoring via partnerships with data providers like Experian.[93] The global debt-based crowdfunding market reached approximately $11.2 billion in 2024, with projections for a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 10.8% through 2033, driven by digital accessibility and demand for alternative fixed-income investments amid volatile traditional markets. In the U.S., it forms a significant portion of the broader alternative finance sector, valued at $260.65 billion in 2024, though growth has moderated due to rising interest rates and economic uncertainty. Lenders face primary risks of borrower default, with historical rates on platforms like LendingClub averaging 3-5% annually, potentially leading to partial or total principal loss without collateral in unsecured loans.[88] Illiquidity persists, as most loans mature in 1-5 years without robust secondary markets, and inflation can erode real returns if rates lag behind economic conditions.[96] Regulations vary by jurisdiction: in the U.S., debt offerings often qualify as securities under SEC rules, requiring compliance with Regulation Crowdfunding (Reg CF) limits of $5 million annually per issuer and mandatory disclosures, while platforms must register as broker-dealers or funding portals.[97] European platforms adhere to directives like the 2019 Crowdfunding Service Providers Regulation, capping investments for non-sophisticated investors to mitigate risks.[98] Despite risks, debt-based crowdfunding offers borrowers faster access to capital without diluting ownership—SMEs secure funds in days versus weeks for bank loans—and lenders diversified, higher-yield alternatives to savings accounts, with average gross returns of 7-9% reported across major U.S. platforms from 2010-2020.[99] Examples include Funding Circle campaigns funding U.K. restaurant expansions with £100,000 loans at 8% interest repaid monthly, or Prosper-facilitated small business loans for inventory purchases totaling millions annually.[100] Empirical data indicates lower default correlations with economic cycles compared to equity crowdfunding, attributing resilience to shorter loan durations and interest-only structures.[101]Specialized and Hybrid Models
Specialized crowdfunding models adapt the core crowdfunding framework to niche sectors or unique asset classes, often incorporating sector-specific regulations and risk profiles to facilitate funding for projects ill-suited to generalist platforms. Real estate crowdfunding, for instance, enables fractional ownership in property developments through equity or debt instruments, allowing non-accredited investors access to commercial and residential assets previously dominated by institutional players. Platforms such as Yieldstreet have facilitated returns exceeding $2.4 billion to investors across alternative real estate and debt offerings as of early 2025.[102] Similarly, litigation crowdfunding funds legal disputes by pooling contributions from investors who receive a share of any successful settlement or judgment, typically after platforms vet cases for merit to mitigate frivolous claims. Examples include LexShares and AxiaFunder, which operate investment-based models selecting high-potential commercial litigation, with funders earning returns proportional to case outcomes.[103] Royalty-based crowdfunding represents another specialization, where backers provide capital in exchange for a fixed percentage of future revenues from products or intellectual property, preserving creator equity while aligning incentives with commercial success; this model suits creative or early-stage ventures like music or inventions.[104] Hybrid models integrate elements from multiple primary crowdfunding types, offering backers diversified return profiles to broaden appeal and reduce reliance on singular mechanisms. For example, platforms like Indiegogo combine reward-based perks—such as product prototypes—with equity options, allowing campaigns to attract both consumer supporters and investors seeking ownership stakes.[105] Fundable employs a similar hybrid approach, blending rewards, donations, and equity to support startups, which has enabled campaigns like those for revenue-sharing fintech tools to raise millions by appealing to varied funder motivations.[106] These hybrids often emerge on versatile platforms to optimize funding efficiency, though they introduce complexities in regulatory compliance, such as SEC oversight for equity components under U.S. rules enacted via the JOBS Act of 2012. Empirical analyses indicate hybrids can enhance campaign success rates by 10-20% in mixed-motivation environments, as backers perceive lower risk through multiple upside paths, though success hinges on transparent disclosure of blended risks.[107]Platforms and Enabling Technologies
Prominent Platforms and Their Ecosystems
Kickstarter, launched in 2009, operates an all-or-nothing reward-based model where projects must meet funding goals to receive pledges, fostering disciplined campaign planning among creators.[16] As of 2025, it has facilitated over 287,000 successfully funded projects from more than 24 million backers, with cumulative pledges exceeding $8 billion, particularly dominant in games (over 47,000 funded projects) and design categories.[108] Its ecosystem includes a global community of repeat backers—numbering around 20 million—who engage via project updates, comments, and surveys, supplemented by integrations with tools like BackerKit for post-campaign fulfillment and analytics platforms for marketing optimization.[109] This network emphasizes creative validation, with 80% success rates in high-pledge tabletop games campaigns in 2024, raising $220 million.[110] Indiegogo, established in 2008, differentiates through flexible funding options allowing creators to keep partial pledges even if goals unmet, appealing to iterative product development in tech and gadgets.[111] By 2025, it supports diverse campaigns via advanced creator tools launched in October, including enhanced verification and pledge management, building an ecosystem around ongoing "InDemand" post-campaign sales that extend funding lifecycles.[112] The platform's community features targeted marketing integrations and partnerships with manufacturers, enabling ecosystems for hardware innovators, though it relies on creator-managed fulfillment to mitigate risks like delays.[113] GoFundMe, focused on donation-based crowdfunding since 2010, prioritizes personal and charitable causes with no platform fees on donations (only payment processing), amassing billions in raises for medical, emergency, and nonprofit needs.[114] Its ecosystem leverages social sharing tools and a vast user base for viral campaigns, with features like team fundraising and updates fostering donor trust through transparency requirements.[115] In 2025, integrations with nonprofit directories and auto-generated pages for over 1.4 million organizations expand its reach, though success hinges on compelling narratives and media amplification rather than structured goals.[116] Patreon sustains creators via subscription pledges for ongoing content, launched in 2013 as a membership model distinct from one-off campaigns, enabling steady revenue from fan communities in arts, podcasts, and writing.[117] By 2025, it hosts millions of patrons supporting exclusive access tiers, with an ecosystem of community forums, analytics dashboards, and API integrations for direct fan-creator engagement, though it faces challenges from payment processor dependencies and creator retention rates.[118] Equity platforms like Republic and StartEngine, enabled by U.S. Reg CF rules since 2016, allow non-accredited investors to buy startup shares, democratizing access with campaigns raising up to $5 million annually per offering.[119] Republic's ecosystem includes curated deals in tech and crypto, secondary trading markets, and investor education tools, facilitating over $10 million in 2024 raises across platforms like it.[120] StartEngine emphasizes compliance and marketing, building networks of retail investors via newsletters and syndicates, though ecosystems grapple with liquidity limits and disclosure mandates to counter hype-driven risks.[121] Crowdcube, prominent in Europe, mirrors this with over 1,000 funded companies, integrating regulatory frameworks like the UK's FCA for investor protections.[122]Underlying Technologies and Innovations
Crowdfunding platforms fundamentally depend on cloud-based infrastructure to ensure scalability, security, and efficient handling of user traffic during peak campaign periods.[123] Secure payment gateways, such as Stripe and PayPal, integrate via APIs to process transactions across multiple currencies and methods, including credit cards and digital wallets, while complying with regulatory standards like PCI DSS.[124] These APIs also enable connectivity with social media for viral sharing and analytics tools for real-time campaign monitoring, forming the backbone of operational reliability since the early 2010s.[125] A key innovation lies in blockchain technology, which introduces decentralized alternatives to traditional platforms by leveraging distributed ledgers for transparent, tamper-proof transaction records.[126] Smart contracts, self-executing code on blockchains like Ethereum, automate fund disbursement based on predefined conditions, such as project milestones, thereby minimizing intermediary risks and enabling milestone-based funding models that protect backers.[127] [128] This approach has gained traction since around 2017, with platforms using smart contracts to trace donations end-to-end and reduce fraud, as evidenced by implementations that boost donor confidence through verifiable utilization of funds.[129] Tokenization represents another blockchain-driven advancement, converting real-world assets into digital tokens for fractional ownership, which expands access to high-value projects like real estate crowdfunding.[130] By December 2024, this technology had begun automating processes and lowering entry barriers, allowing global participation without traditional securities intermediaries.[130] Artificial intelligence and machine learning further innovate by predicting campaign outcomes and optimizing strategies; models trained on historical data achieve up to 81% accuracy in forecasting success based on factors like textual descriptions and backer behavior.[131] Applications include AI-driven risk assessment for equity models, audience segmentation for targeted marketing, and automated content analysis to refine pitches, with studies confirming ML's superiority over statistical methods for pledge prediction.[132] [133] These tools, integrated since the mid-2010s, enhance platform efficiency but require robust data validation to mitigate biases in training sets.[134]Operational Models and Fee Structures
Crowdfunding platforms primarily operate through two funding release models: all-or-nothing and flexible funding. In the all-or-nothing model, funds are only disbursed to the campaign creator if the funding goal is met within the specified timeframe; otherwise, pledges are refunded to backers, minimizing risk of underfunded projects and encouraging realistic goal-setting.[135][136] This approach dominates reward-based platforms like Kickstarter, where it aligns incentives by ensuring creators receive viable capital only upon success.[137] In contrast, flexible funding—also known as keep-it-all—releases all collected funds regardless of goal attainment, allowing creators to proceed with partial financing but exposing them to potential shortfalls in project execution.[138] Platforms such as Indiegogo and GoFundMe employ this for broader applicability in donation or exploratory campaigns, though it may lead to higher failure rates without full funding.[139][140] Equity and debt-based platforms adapt these models with added regulatory layers. Equity crowdfunding involves issuing shares or convertible notes to investors, often under frameworks like U.S. SEC Regulation Crowdfunding (Reg CF), requiring platforms to verify investor limits and conduct due diligence to prevent fraud.[141] Operations include ongoing compliance reporting and secondary markets for liquidity in some cases, differing from one-off reward campaigns. Debt-based models function as peer-to-peer lending, where backers provide loans repaid with interest, typically without strict all-or-nothing thresholds but with credit assessments and default provisions to protect lenders.[135] Platforms manage repayment schedules and collections, emphasizing risk mitigation through borrower vetting.[142] Fee structures vary by platform and model, generally comprising success-based platform fees (4-10% of funds raised) and payment processing charges (2.9-5% plus fixed per-transaction fees), applied only to successful campaigns to incentivize performance. Donation platforms like GoFundMe often waive platform fees (0% as of 2025), relying on optional donor tips and processing fees of 2.9% + $0.30 per donation. Reward platforms charge 5% platform fees; for instance, Kickstarter deducts 5% on funded projects plus 3-5% processing, while Indiegogo applies 5% platform and 2.9% + $0.30 processing, with potential escalations for flexible campaigns.| Platform Type | Example Platforms | Platform Fee | Processing Fee | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Donation/Reward | GoFundMe | 0% | 2.9% + $0.30 | Tips optional; applies to all funds.[146] |
| Reward | Kickstarter | 5% (success only) | 3% + $0.20 | All-or-nothing model.[147] |
| Reward/Flexible | Indiegogo | 5% | 2.9% + $0.30 | Higher for flexible in some cases.[148] |
| Equity | Crowdcube, StartEngine | 5-10% success fee | Varies (1-3%) | Plus legal/admin costs; e.g., 7% + VAT.[149][150] |
| Debt | Various P2P sites | 5-10% | 2-3% + investor fees | Includes servicing for repayments.[151][152] |
Case Studies and Empirical Examples
Landmark Historical Campaigns
In 1850, French philosopher Auguste Comte launched a public subscription appeal on March 14 to finance his ongoing positivist research and publications, soliciting small recurring contributions from supporters in exchange for access to his works and involvement in his intellectual community. This effort, documented through printed subscription lists, gathered commitments from individuals across Europe, enabling Comte to sustain his projects amid financial hardship until his death in 1857.[31][155] A precursor to modern donation-based models occurred in 1713 when British poet Alexander Pope sought public pre-payments to fund the publication of his translation of Homer's Iliad, collecting subscriptions from over 750 buyers at rates of £5–£8.15s per volume, which covered printing costs and yielded Pope a profit of approximately £5,000 after six volumes. This rewards-based approach distributed advance copies to subscribers, demonstrating early reliance on dispersed individual pledges for cultural production.[30] The pedestal for the Statue of Liberty represented a pivotal 19th-century campaign, as U.S. funds fell short for the $250,000 required structure after France gifted the statue in 1884. On March 16, 1885, newspaper publisher Joseph Pulitzer initiated a drive in the New York World, appealing for contributions of any size and publishing donors' names to encourage participation, ultimately raising $102,000 from 120,000 contributors—80% giving $1 or less—within five months.[35][156][33] This effort, leveraging mass media for broad mobilization, completed the pedestal by August 1886, allowing the statue's assembly and dedication.[35]Record-Breaking Successes
The eufyMake E1, a personal 3D-texture UV printer developed by Anker Innovations, set the record for the highest-funded Kickstarter campaign in June 2025, raising $46,762,258 from 17,822 backers against a $500,000 goal.[157] This surpassed prior benchmarks, highlighting rapid scaling in consumer electronics hardware funding, with pledges exceeding $10 million within 14 hours of launch.[158] Prior to this, fantasy author Brandon Sanderson's "Surprise! Four Secret Novels" campaign on Kickstarter achieved $41,754,153 from 185,341 backers in March 2022, establishing a then-unprecedented milestone for publishing and creative IP expansion.[159] Sanderson's follow-up efforts, including a $23,756,818 leatherbound edition of Words of Radiance in 2024, further demonstrated sustained backer enthusiasm for established creators leveraging direct fan support.[160] On Indiegogo, the MATE X foldable e-bike campaign raised $17.7 million from over 22,000 backers in 2021, marking one of the platform's top single-project hauls for mobility hardware and underscoring demand for affordable urban transport innovations.[161] Earlier, MATE's initial e-bike campaigns cumulatively exceeded $24 million, reflecting iterative success in electric vehicle prototyping.[162] Beyond platform-specific records, Star Citizen, a space simulation game developed by Cloud Imperium Games, has amassed over $859 million in crowdfunding since its 2012 launch via proprietary channels, dwarfing traditional platform totals and earning Guinness recognition as the most-funded videogame project as of 2023 with $551 million at that point.[163][164] This ongoing model, blending initial pledges with perpetual ship sales, illustrates crowdfunding's potential for long-term, non-all-or-nothing financing in ambitious software development.| Campaign | Platform | Amount Raised (USD) | Year | Backers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| eufyMake E1 UV Printer | Kickstarter | 46,762,258 | 2025 | 17,822[157] |
| Brandon Sanderson Secret Novels | Kickstarter | 41,754,153 | 2022 | 185,341[159] |
| Star Citizen (cumulative) | Proprietary | 859,000,000+ | 2012–2025 | Millions (cumulative)[163] |
| MATE X e-Bike | Indiegogo | 17,700,000 | 2021 | 22,000+[161] |
High-Profile Failures and Lessons Learned
The Coolest Cooler campaign on Kickstarter, launched in July 2014, raised $13,285,226 from over 62,000 backers, becoming one of the platform's most funded projects at the time.[165] The product promised an all-in-one cooler with integrated blender, Bluetooth speaker, USB charger, and bottle opener, but production delays mounted due to manufacturing complexities and cost overruns, leading to partial deliveries and quality issues for some backers.[166] By December 2019, the company ceased operations, leaving approximately 20,000 backers without their $185 rewards plus shipping, citing U.S. tariffs on Chinese imports as a final factor but amid broader mismanagement, including insufficient capital for scaling after initial hype-driven funding.[167] [168] Similarly, the Zano mini-drone project, launched in November 2014, secured £2,341,000 (about $3.5 million) from nearly 9,000 backers, marking Europe's largest Kickstarter at launch with promises of autonomous flight, HD camera tracking, and swarming capabilities.[169] Torquing Group shipped only four functional prototypes before collapsing in November 2015, as technical flaws in battery life, stability, and software integration proved insurmountable despite prototypes shown in videos that did not reflect scalable production realities.[170] An independent investigation revealed inadequate testing, overreliance on unproven tech, and poor communication, resulting in asset auctions and minimal refunds.[171] [169] These cases underscore causal factors in crowdfunding shortfalls: campaigns often attract funding based on conceptual prototypes or renders that mask engineering and supply chain hurdles, with creators underestimating costs by 2-5 times due to unaccounted scaling expenses like tooling and quality control.[172] Data indicates about 9% of Kickstarter projects fail to deliver rewards entirely, with 8% of pledged dollars lost to such outcomes, primarily from optimistic timelines ignoring manufacturing lead times of 6-12 months.[173] Lessons include prioritizing pre-production validation through independent audits and contingency funds covering at least 50% over budgeted costs, as hype-driven pledges rarely align with execution feasibility without prior revenue streams.[174] Backers benefit from demanding verifiable prototypes and escrow mechanisms, while platforms like Kickstarter have since enhanced guidelines requiring delivery plans, though enforcement relies on self-reporting.[170]Sectoral Applications
Philanthropy and Nonprofit Initiatives
Crowdfunding platforms dedicated to philanthropy and nonprofits facilitate direct appeals from organizations to individual donors, enabling rapid mobilization for causes such as disaster relief, medical aid, and community development. These initiatives often leverage social media integration and storytelling to amplify reach, allowing small donations to aggregate into substantial funds. In 2024, the global non-profit crowdfunding platform market was valued at USD 293.5 million, with projections to reach USD 1 billion by 2034 at a 13.1% compound annual growth rate, reflecting growing adoption amid digital giving trends.[175] Prominent platforms include Givebutter, which offers free tools without platform fees or subscriptions, emphasizing peer-to-peer and event-based fundraising; GoFundMe Pro, tailored for nonprofits with branded campaigns and donation forms; and Donorbox, which supports recurring donations and integrates with nonprofit CRMs. Other options like CauseVox and Fundly provide customizable pages for cause-specific drives, often with lower barriers to entry than traditional grant-seeking. These platforms differ from general crowdfunding sites by prioritizing tax-deductible contributions and compliance with nonprofit regulations, though they still face competition for donor attention in a saturated online space.[176][177][178] Successful campaigns demonstrate crowdfunding's potential for nonprofits. For instance, Charity: Water raised over $1 million in a single campaign to fund clean water projects in developing countries, utilizing compelling narratives and video updates to engage global donors. The American Cancer Society has employed platforms for targeted appeals, such as patient support funds, while Pencils of Promise integrated crowdfunding with school-building goals in underserved regions. In peer-to-peer examples, the #OneTeam for Kenya campaign collected $211,383 for community aid, highlighting how volunteer networks can drive results through personal outreach. These cases underscore that transparency, frequent updates, and social proof—such as endorsements from influencers—correlate with higher success, though overall nonprofit crowdfunding success rates remain below 50% due to visibility challenges.[179][180][181] Despite advantages like bypassing bureaucratic grant processes and accessing micro-donors, nonprofit crowdfunding encounters hurdles including donor trust deficits, where unverified appeals risk fraud perceptions, and intense competition among thousands of active campaigns. Platforms mitigate this via verification badges and progress tracking, but nonprofits must invest in marketing to stand out, as one-time donors often fail to convert to recurring supporters. Empirical data indicates that while online giving constitutes 13.4% of small nonprofits' revenue, sustaining momentum post-campaign requires robust follow-up strategies to avoid donor fatigue.[182][183][184][185]Creative and Product Development Projects
Crowdfunding has facilitated the realization of numerous creative endeavors, including films, music albums, and visual arts, by allowing creators to bypass conventional funding barriers such as studio approvals or gallery sponsorships. Platforms like Kickstarter, which emphasize all-or-nothing funding models, have proven particularly effective for these projects, hosting over 234,000 successful campaigns that collectively raised more than $7.109 billion as of 2023.[186] In categories such as film and video, Kickstarter has supported over 150 projects that achieved theatrical releases, demonstrating the model's capacity to validate audience interest prior to production.[187] Success rates in creative sectors often exceed those in technology, with music and comics campaigns achieving higher funding probabilities due to lower production complexities and direct fan engagement.[188] Notable examples include the 2013 Veronica Mars film campaign, which raised over $5.7 million from 91,000 backers on Kickstarter, enabling the revival of a canceled television series into a feature-length production.[189] In music, campaigns like Toad the Wet Sprocket's 2015 studio album effort garnered $264,762, leveraging nostalgia and exclusive rewards to mobilize dedicated listeners.[190] Art projects, such as illustrated books for niche audiences like "Music for Cats," which raised $241,651, highlight how targeted perks—digital downloads, signed prints, or custom artworks—drive backer participation by fostering a sense of co-creation.[190] These successes underscore crowdfunding's role in democratizing access to capital for independent artists, though overall platform success hovers around 36-40%, contingent on compelling narratives and pre-launch marketing.[191] For product development, crowdfunding serves as a mechanism to prototype and manufacture consumer goods, particularly hardware gadgets and designs, by pre-selling units to gauge market demand and secure initial capital. Technology and design projects on platforms like Indiegogo and Kickstarter exhibited a 50% success rate in 2023, though hardware-specific efforts face steeper hurdles, with rates as low as 20-25% due to high development costs and technical uncertainties.[50][192] Indiegogo's flexible funding option—allowing creators to retain partial pledges even if goals unmet—appeals to product innovators, contrasting Kickstarter's stricter creative focus.[193] Challenges in product fulfillment are pronounced, with approximately 9% of funded hardware campaigns failing to deliver, often due to supply chain disruptions, manufacturing delays, and underestimated scaling costs.[194] Common pitfalls include overpromising timelines, inadequate quality control, and logistics issues like customs and inventory management, which have eroded backer trust in cases involving prolonged shipping waits exceeding one year.[195][196] Despite these risks, successful campaigns, such as early smartwatches or modular coolers, have transitioned to retail viability by treating crowdfunding as a demand-validation tool rather than a full production fund. Empirical data indicates that projects with working prototypes and transparent risk disclosures achieve higher pledge volumes, mitigating causal factors like scope creep that lead to cancellations.[197]Startup and Business Funding
Crowdfunding serves as an alternative financing mechanism for startups and businesses, enabling entrepreneurs to raise capital from a broad pool of individual investors or backers without relying solely on traditional venture capital or bank loans. In equity crowdfunding, backers receive shares or convertible notes in exchange for funds, democratizing access to early-stage investments previously limited to accredited investors. Reward-based models, often used for product validation, offer perks or prototypes, while debt crowdfunding involves repayable loans with interest. This approach has gained traction since the U.S. Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act of April 5, 2012, which amended securities laws to permit general solicitation and equity offerings to non-accredited investors under Regulation Crowdfunding (Reg CF), initially capping raises at $1 million annually per issuer.[198][44] The JOBS Act significantly expanded startup funding options by easing SEC reporting requirements and allowing platforms to facilitate public offerings, leading to a surge in equity crowdfunding activity. By 2023, global equity crowdfunding raised approximately $6 billion, reflecting its role in bridging funding gaps for small businesses amid tightening venture capital selectivity. In the U.S., equity platforms facilitated over $215 million in investments into startups by mid-2025, up from prior years, though amounts vary widely from tens of thousands to millions per campaign. Regulations have evolved, with Reg CF limits raised to $5 million by 2021, enabling more substantial raises while mandating disclosures to mitigate risks like investor losses from unproven ventures.[70][50] Prominent platforms include Wefunder and Republic, which specialize in equity crowdfunding and have enabled thousands of startups to secure funding from retail investors starting at $100 minimums. StartEngine and SeedInvest focus on vetted opportunities, often combining equity with revenue-sharing models to align incentives. For pre-revenue businesses, reward platforms like Kickstarter and Indiegogo enable startups to raise funds through pre-sales or rewards without equity dilution, while GoFundMe supports donation-based campaigns; these often feature all-or-nothing models where no repayment is required if funding goals are unmet. Such approaches are effective for validating demand in consumer products or apps while securing capital, as seen in successful campaigns that have launched companies such as Oculus VR, acquired by Facebook for $2 billion in 2014 after raising $2.4 million. Success rates for startup-focused campaigns hover around 20-40%, lower than general reward crowdfunding due to higher regulatory hurdles and investor scrutiny, with factors like strong prototypes, marketing, and founder track records correlating with higher funding attainment.[199][122][200] Empirical outcomes highlight both opportunities and caveats: equity-backed startups often achieve faster scaling through community validation, but post-campaign performance shows high failure rates akin to traditional startups, with many yielding zero returns due to illiquidity and operational risks. Platforms mitigate this via due diligence, yet fraud incidents underscore the need for investor caution, as evidenced by SEC enforcement actions against misleading campaigns. Overall, crowdfunding has supplemented $1.6 billion in global market value as of 2024, projected to reach $4.45 billion by 2032, driven by fintech innovations and economic pressures favoring diverse funding sources.[201][202][45]Real Estate and Infrastructure
Real estate crowdfunding enables individuals to invest in property developments or acquisitions by pooling small contributions through online platforms, bypassing traditional barriers like high minimum investments required by banks or private equity funds. This model typically involves equity or debt offerings where backers receive shares of rental income, appreciation, or fixed returns, often facilitated by specialized sites such as CrowdStreet or Fundrise.[203][204] In the United States, platforms must comply with Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Regulation Crowdfunding, which caps annual raises at $5 million and mandates disclosures to protect non-accredited investors.[205] Similarly, in the European Union, the European Crowdfunding Service Providers (ECSP) regulation under EU 2020/1503 standardizes licensing and transparency requirements to mitigate risks like fraud or misinformation.[206][207] The sector has exhibited robust growth, with the global real estate crowdfunding market valued at approximately USD 10.50 billion in 2024 and projected to expand at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 12.8% through 2034, driven by rising interest rates that deterred conventional lending and democratized access to institutional-grade deals.[208] Success stories include a three-year investment yielding 40% returns through diversified multifamily housing portfolios, highlighting potential for passive income via distributions averaging 8-12% annually on stabilized assets.[209] However, failures occur due to project delays, market downturns, or platform insolvency, as seen in cases where operators faced financial distress leading to investor losses exceeding 20% on illiquid holdings.[210] Empirical analyses indicate that projects with transparent financial modeling and experienced sponsors achieve higher funding rates, with success factors including detailed risk disclosures and verifiable track records.[211] Infrastructure crowdfunding, though less prevalent than real estate due to larger capital needs and regulatory hurdles, applies to public or semi-public works like renewable energy installations, urban parks, or transportation enhancements. Platforms facilitate community-driven funding for projects such as solar photovoltaic parks or electric vehicle charging networks, where backers often receive bonds or revenue shares tied to usage fees.[212][213] Notable examples include small-scale civic initiatives in Culver, Oregon, and Nephi, Utah, which raised funds via donation-based models for recreational facilities, demonstrating viability for local governments seeking supplemental financing amid budget constraints.[214] A green infrastructure pilot in Fairfax, Virginia, utilized investor crowdfunding to install stormwater management systems, achieving funding goals through targeted equity offerings that aligned community interests with environmental outcomes.[215] Challenges persist, including scalability limits—most projects remain under $1 million—and dependency on local endorsements, with success hinging on hybrid models blending crowdfunding with grants to cover overruns.[213]Research and Innovation Funding
Crowdfunding serves as a supplementary funding source for scientific research and technological innovation, bypassing the competitive and often bureaucratic processes of government grants and institutional funding. Researchers propose projects on dedicated platforms, soliciting small contributions from individuals motivated by personal interest, altruism, or potential societal impact, with backers typically receiving non-financial rewards such as progress reports, data access, or co-authorship acknowledgments. This model has gained traction since the early 2010s, particularly for early-career scientists and exploratory work deemed too risky or niche for conventional sources.[216][217] Specialized platforms like Experiment.com, launched in 2012, focus exclusively on scientific research, employing an all-or-nothing funding model where projects only receive pledged funds if they meet their goal. Analysis of over 700 campaigns on Experiment.com indicates a success rate of approximately 45-48%, higher than the 20% approval rate for U.S. National Institutes of Health grants, with junior investigators and female scientists achieving greater relative success due to crowdfunding's lower barriers to entry. By 2019, such platforms had collectively distributed $4.37 million across sampled scientific campaigns, though individual projects typically raise modest sums—often under $10,000—compared to multimillion-dollar grants.[216][218][219] In technological innovation, crowdfunding facilitates R&D for prototypes and product development, particularly in hardware and consumer electronics via general platforms like Kickstarter and Indiegogo. Notable examples include the Pebble smartwatch, which raised $10.3 million in 2012 to fund iterative design and manufacturing, demonstrating how public validation can accelerate innovation cycles. Similarly, campaigns for solar-powered vehicles, such as Sono Motors' Sion project, amassed over $62 million by 2017, enabling scaling of R&D efforts that traditional venture capital might avoid due to high uncertainty. These successes highlight crowdfunding's role in bridging early-stage funding gaps, with global rewards-based crowdfunding reaching $16.2 billion in 2014, a portion directed toward innovative R&D.[220][221] Despite these advantages, challenges persist, including reliance on personal networks for initial traction, time-intensive marketing efforts that divert from core research, and the risk of funding projects based on public appeal rather than rigorous scientific merit, potentially prioritizing charismatic or emotionally resonant topics over high-impact, low-visibility work. Success correlates with clear communication of project goals and frequent updates, but overall yields remain small-scale, limiting applicability to capital-intensive fields like biotechnology. Empirical reviews underscore variable post-funding outcomes, with some projects advancing to peer-reviewed publications while others struggle with delivery due to overambitious scopes.[222][223][6]Economic Metrics and Outcomes
Global Market Size and Growth Trajectories
The global crowdfunding market, encompassing total funds raised through reward-based, equity, donation, and similar models, was valued at approximately $17.72 billion in 2024 according to estimates from industry analysts.[224] Alternative assessments place the figure higher, at $18.4 billion for the same year, reflecting variations in scope such as inclusion of specific platform data or regional adjustments.[225] These discrepancies arise from differing definitions and data collection methods across reports, with narrower focuses excluding certain hybrid models potentially understating volumes, while broader inclusions may incorporate preliminary or unverified campaign outcomes.[226] Projections indicate sustained expansion, with the market anticipated to reach $20.34 billion in 2025, reflecting a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 14.8% from 2024 levels, driven by increasing internet penetration and alternative financing demand amid traditional banking constraints.[224] Longer-term forecasts vary: one analysis projects growth to $46.4 billion by 2033 at a CAGR of 10.81%, emphasizing equity and reward-based segments, while another envisions $108.64 billion by 2033 at 18.24% CAGR, attributing acceleration to technological integrations like blockchain and mobile apps.[225][226] Such trajectories are supported by empirical trends in campaign proliferation, though actual realization depends on regulatory stability and economic conditions, as evidenced by post-2020 recoveries in campaign volumes following pandemic-induced dips.[225]| Source | 2024 Market Size (USD Billion) | Projected Size (USD Billion) | Timeframe | CAGR (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Business Research Company | 17.72 | 38.23 (by 2029) | 2024-2029 | 14.8 |
| IMARC Group | 18.4 | 46.4 (by 2033) | 2024-2033 | 10.81 |
| Market Data Forecast | 24.05 | 108.64 (by 2033) | 2025-2033 | 18.24 |
Success and Failure Statistics
Success rates for crowdfunding campaigns, typically measured by achieving or exceeding the specified funding goal within the allotted timeframe, differ markedly across platforms and funding models, with reward-based and equity-based campaigns showing varied outcomes based on empirical data. Reward-based platforms like Kickstarter exhibit success rates of approximately 39.6%, derived from analyses of hundreds of thousands of projects launched up to 2022.[227] Indiegogo, another reward-based site, reports lower rates of 9-18%, reflecting its flexible funding option that allows partial payouts but reduces incentives for full goal attainment.[186] [193] Equity crowdfunding, involving investor stakes rather than rewards, demonstrates higher campaign success, with 66.5% of U.S. firms in a sample of over 3,500 achieving goals, often raising averages exceeding targets due to regulatory minimums and investor vetting.[79] In 2024, investment crowdfunding platforms saw success rates slightly below the 80% peak of 2022, attributed to market volatility and stricter investor scrutiny.[80] Donation-based platforms like GoFundMe employ "keep-what-you-raise" models, rendering traditional goal-based success metrics less applicable; most campaigns that gain traction raise partial funds, but comprehensive goal attainment data remains sparse and platform-specific.[228] Aggregated across models, overall crowdfunding success hovers at 22.4-23.7%, underscoring high failure prevalence—often over 75%—driven by factors like inadequate promotion, unrealistic goals, and market saturation, as evidenced in multi-platform studies.[229] [70]| Platform Type | Approximate Success Rate | Key Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Kickstarter (Reward-based) | 36-40% | All-or-nothing model; failures yield no funds.[227] |
| Indiegogo (Reward-based) | 9-18% | Flexible funding lowers effective goal pressure.[186] |
| U.S. Equity Crowdfunding | 66.5% | Higher due to investor commitments and regulations.[79] |
| Overall Average | 22.4-23.7% | Varies by sector; tech and creative projects fare better.[229] |
Post-Campaign Performance Data
Approximately 9% of Kickstarter projects fail to deliver any rewards to backers, with failure rates consistent across categories at around this level.[230] Among backers of successful projects, 65% report receiving rewards on time, while 7% of all backers receive nothing.[230] Independent analyses of smaller samples in high-risk categories like design, games, and technology indicate higher failure rates, with about 40% of projects failing to deliver at all, 30% delivering with delays under six months, and another 30% facing longer delays of six to 24 months; no strong predictors like funding amount or team size correlated with better outcomes in this dataset of 35 projects from 2018.[231] Post-campaign business performance varies, but successful reward-based projects often transition to ongoing operations, with over 90% continuing as ventures and adding an average of 2.2 employees; however, only 31% deliver products on time, and 37% exceed budgets.[232] Revenue generation remains limited for most, though 32% of successful projects report annual earnings exceeding $100,000.[232] Access to outside capital improves with stronger campaign performance, as higher funds raised serve as proof-of-concept, boosting the probability of external financing from 19% at $5,000 raised to 71.6% at $300,000, particularly for amounts up to $75,000 where marginal benefits peak.[233] In equity crowdfunding, post-campaign outcomes for startups show mixed financing trajectories, with crowdfunded firms less likely to secure follow-on venture capital compared to those funded by angels, despite initial validation.[29] Data on long-term investor returns or project sustainability in equity models remains sparse, as platforms like StartEngine or Crowdcube do not systematically report fulfillment or dissolution rates equivalent to reward platforms. Overall, while crowdfunding enables initial momentum, empirical evidence highlights frequent delays, non-delivery, and subdued scaling, underscoring risks beyond funding attainment.[232][230]Advantages for Participants
Creator Perspectives
Creators utilize crowdfunding platforms to secure financing for projects that may face rejection from conventional investors or institutions, enabling direct appeals to niche audiences interested in innovative or unconventional ideas. This approach allows creators to test market demand empirically through pre-commitments, reducing financial risk compared to self-funding or loans, as evidenced by platforms' all-or-nothing models where funds are only collected upon reaching predefined goals.[16] Successful campaigns often serve as proof-of-concept, attracting subsequent venture capital or sales, with studies indicating that high-performing crowdfunding efforts correlate with improved access to external financing post-campaign.[233] From the creator standpoint, key advantages include community engagement and rapid prototyping feedback; for instance, reward-based platforms like Kickstarter facilitate building loyal supporter bases, with creators reporting that 20-40% of backers often originate from platform discovery rather than prior networks.[234] This validation mechanism contrasts with traditional funding's reliance on gatekeeper approval, empowering independent producers—such as indie game developers or artists—to prioritize creative control over investor demands. Motivations vary by creator type: "indie producers" emphasize artistic autonomy, while "fund seekers" focus on practical capital acquisition without equity surrender, as identified in analyses of project initiators.[235] However, creators frequently encounter substantial operational hurdles, including intensive pre-launch marketing that demands treating the campaign as a full-time endeavor, often leveraging personal networks for up to 30-50% of pledges. Post-funding fulfillment poses the greatest risk, with logistics, manufacturing delays, and cost overruns leading to widespread project setbacks; Kickstarter's analysis reveals that while 91% of fully funded projects eventually deliver rewards, the remaining 9% fail outright, prompting creator explanations or partial refunds.[230] Experienced creators note that repeat campaigns can boost fundraising totals due to reputation effects but may erode backer trust if prior deliveries lag, highlighting the causal link between execution reliability and long-term viability.[236] Overall, while crowdfunding democratizes opportunity, creators must possess robust planning and communication skills to mitigate these empirically documented pitfalls.Backer and Investor Benefits
Backers in reward-based crowdfunding platforms, such as Kickstarter, typically receive non-monetary perks including early access to products, exclusive editions, or personalized acknowledgments, which can deliver intrinsic value through anticipation and involvement in project development.[237] Empirical analysis of over 10,000 Kickstarter campaigns from 2009 to 2015 found that backers often realize effective financial returns equivalent to 10-20% discounts on retail prices when fulfillment occurs, though delivery delays affect perceived value.[237] These rewards foster a sense of direct contribution to creative or innovative endeavors, with surveys indicating higher satisfaction among backers motivated by prosocial goals rather than purely transactional exchanges.[238] Investors in equity crowdfunding, enabled by regulations like the U.S. JOBS Act of 2012, gain access to early-stage company shares previously reserved for accredited investors, allowing portfolio diversification with minimum investments as low as $100.[80] Data from platforms like Crowdcube show realized returns exceeding £201 million through exits and acquisitions as of 2023, with some campaigns yielding multiples of 5-10x for successful investments.[239] However, these benefits hinge on selection; research on U.S. Regulation Crowdfunding (Reg CF) campaigns from 2016-2021 documents average annual returns potential aligning with venture capital benchmarks of 26%, though skewed by outliers amid high failure rates.[240] Beyond financial or material gains, backers and investors across models report non-tangible benefits such as enhanced social capital and alignment with personal values, evidenced by contributions totaling billions in reward and donation crowdfunding where no repayment is expected.[241] A 2020 study of European platforms revealed that backers in cultural projects prioritize community building and intrinsic motivation over returns, leading to sustained engagement and repeat pledging rates of 20-30%.[238] This participatory aspect democratizes support for underrepresented ideas, though empirical evidence underscores that benefits accrue primarily to informed backers who vet campaigns rigorously.[227]Drawbacks, Risks, and Criticisms
Prevalence of Fraud and Scams
Fraud in crowdfunding typically involves deliberate deception, such as fabricating projects or misrepresenting intent to deliver rewards, distinct from project failures due to mismanagement or unforeseen challenges. Confirmed instances remain rare relative to total campaigns; for example, GoFundMe, a major donation-based platform, reports that fraudulent campaigns constitute less than 0.1% of all postings.[242] An exhaustive review by Cumming, Hornuf, and Schweizer (2016, updated 2021) of media-reported allegations on Kickstarter and Indiegogo from 2010 to 2015 identified 193 cases, with only a subset verified as detected fraud after follow-up to 2018, representing far less than 1% of the over 500,000 campaigns launched on those platforms during the period.[243] [244] One analysis of Kickstarter projects indicated potential fraud signals in 2.3% of cases, often involving inconsistencies in creator claims or funding use.[231] Non-delivery rates, which encompass both fraud and legitimate shortfalls, are higher: Kickstarter's 2015 fulfillment study, based on surveys of over 125,000 backers and creators, found that 9% of funded projects failed to provide promised rewards, accounting for 8% of total pledged dollars.[230] Reward-based platforms like Kickstarter and Indiegogo face elevated risks compared to regulated equity crowdfunding, as backers lack investor protections and proving fraudulent intent requires evidence beyond mere non-fulfillment. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has pursued enforcement in prominent cases, including the 2019 action against iBackPack producers who raised over $800,000 for undelivered backpacks via deceptive campaigns.[245] Other documented schemes include fake medical emergencies on donation sites and vaporware products on reward platforms, with individual losses often small ($35–$100 per backer) but aggregating significantly across victims.[246] Detection challenges persist due to platforms' reliance on self-reported data and post-campaign verification, with underreporting likely as small per-victim amounts deter complaints. Recent FTC data for 2024 show overall U.S. fraud losses at $12.5 billion, up from prior years, though crowdfunding-specific figures are not disaggregated; investment and online scams dominate, but crowdfunding's unregulated nature amplifies vulnerability in reward and donation models.[247] Academic analyses highlight fraud indicators like excessive images, vague timelines, or high funding goals without prototypes, enabling machine learning-based detection but underscoring platforms' limited proactive screening.[63] While prevalence data suggest fraud affects a minority of campaigns, the asymmetric incentives—platforms earn fees regardless of outcomes—contribute to persistent risks for backers.[248]Financial and Market Risks
Crowdfunding backers face substantial financial risks, primarily due to the high likelihood of project non-delivery or failure, which can result in total loss of invested funds. In reward-based platforms like Kickstarter, empirical analyses indicate that approximately 58% of campaigns fail to meet their funding goals, leaving backers without promised rewards or refunds in most cases.[249] Equity and debt crowdfunding amplify these risks, as underlying ventures resemble early-stage startups with failure rates exceeding 70-90%, akin to traditional venture capital outcomes where principal is often irrecoverable.[250][251] Liquidity constraints represent another core financial vulnerability, as crowdfunded investments typically lack secondary markets, preventing backers from exiting positions without platform-specific buyback options, which are rare and often at discounted values. Regulatory disclosures from bodies like FINRA emphasize that backers may hold illiquid assets for years, exposing them to prolonged opportunity costs and inability to respond to personal financial needs.[252] In debt crowdfunding, default rates can mirror those in peer-to-peer lending, with historical data showing 5-10% non-repayment in stable markets, escalating during borrower insolvencies.[98] Market risks further compound these issues through intensified competition and macroeconomic volatility. Platform saturation has led to declining marginal success rates; for instance, post-2020 data reveals a 2.7% drop in funding for certain categories like tabletop games on Kickstarter, reflecting oversupply and backer fatigue.[70] Economic downturns, while sometimes boosting crowdfunding volumes as traditional finance contracts, heighten default probabilities by straining project cash flows—studies during the COVID-19 period found no aggregate decline in success rates but noted sector-specific vulnerabilities in consumer goods amid reduced discretionary spending.[11] Geopolitical and policy uncertainties can disrupt performance, with elevated economic policy uncertainty correlating to variable funding outcomes, though empirical evidence suggests resilience in aggregate pledge volumes rather than guaranteed returns.[253][254]Ethical and Ideological Concerns
Crowdfunding raises ethical concerns regarding the exploitation of backers' goodwill through incomplete accountability mechanisms, where creators may compromise on project quality or disseminate misinformation without facing proportional consequences, even in non-fraudulent cases.[255] In medical crowdfunding, which accounts for a significant portion of campaigns—raising over $1 billion annually in the United States by 2020—participants often disclose intimate health details to evoke sympathy, thereby endangering privacy and dignity while incentivizing emotionally manipulative narratives over substantive updates.[256] [257] These practices fail to address underlying systemic healthcare deficiencies and can perpetuate moral hazards by shifting responsibility from public systems to individual appeals.[258] Such ethical lapses intersect with ideological tensions, as platforms' moderation policies reflect corporate values that selectively restrict funding for contentious causes, prompting accusations of bias and censorship. For example, in February 2022, GoFundMe halted the "Freedom Convoy 2022" campaign protesting Canadian COVID-19 mandates, freezing approximately CA$10 million in donations citing reports of violence and returning funds to donors, a decision criticized by supporters as ideologically motivated suppression of dissent.[259] [260] Alternative platforms like GiveSendGo, which prioritize broader free speech tolerances, have hosted campaigns linked to extremist ideologies, including those from white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups, raising over $6 million for far-right causes between 2017 and 2022 according to analyses by advocacy groups monitoring such activities.[261] [262] Ideological concerns further encompass the facilitation of terrorism financing, with peer-reviewed studies documenting how groups like Hamas have leveraged platforms to solicit small donations globally, bypassing traditional banking scrutiny and amassing significant sums—potentially millions—through dispersed, low-value contributions that evade detection.[263] This dual dynamic—platform deplatforming of disfavored politics alongside tolerance for others—highlights a governance divide between mainstream "Big Tech" entities enforcing restrictive terms and "alt-tech" alternatives embracing minimal intervention, underscoring crowdfunding's role in amplifying ideological polarization rather than neutral resource allocation.[264] Critics from across the spectrum argue this selective enforcement undermines free association principles, while proponents of stricter controls cite the empirical risks of enabling harm, such as funding ideologically driven violence.[264]Regulatory Landscape
United States Regulations
The Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act, signed into law on April 5, 2012, established the primary federal framework for equity crowdfunding in the United States by amending the Securities Act of 1933 to permit general solicitation and sales of securities to non-accredited investors under specific exemptions.[205] Title III of the Act authorized the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to develop Regulation Crowdfunding (Reg CF), which was adopted in 2015 and amended in 2020 to expand access while imposing investor protections.[53] Reg CF allows eligible U.S. companies to raise capital through securities offerings without full SEC registration, provided transactions occur via registered online intermediaries.[252] Under Reg CF, issuers may raise up to $5 million in aggregate gross proceeds over a 12-month period from both accredited and non-accredited investors, a limit increased from $1.07 million via 2021 SEC amendments to accommodate inflation and market growth.[205] Offerings must be conducted exclusively through an SEC-registered funding portal or broker-dealer platform, which performs due diligence, facilitates communications, and ensures compliance with anti-fraud rules under Section 4A of the Securities Act.[265] Intermediaries are prohibited from offering investment advice or compensating employees based on sales performance, aiming to mitigate conflicts of interest.[53] Investor protections include tiered investment limits for non-accredited investors, calculated as the greater of $2,500 or 5% of their annual income or net worth (whichever is lower), with a maximum aggregate limit of $124,000 across all crowdfunding investments in a 12-month period. Accredited investors face no such caps but must confirm suitability through the intermediary. Issuers are required to file Form C with the SEC, disclosing business operations, financial condition (including audited statements for raises over $1.235 million), use of proceeds, ownership structure, and risks, with ongoing annual reports (Form C-AR) mandated post-offering.[266] "Bad actor" disqualifications apply, barring issuers or covered persons with certain securities violations from relying on the exemption.[53] Securities issued under Reg CF are restricted from resale for one year, except to accredited investors or back to the issuer, to curb speculative trading.[267] Non-equity crowdfunding, such as reward- or donation-based models on platforms like Kickstarter, generally avoids federal securities regulation if no ownership interests are offered, though state laws may apply. Related exemptions include Regulation A (Tier 2), permitting up to $75 million raises with scaled disclosures, often used for broader "mini-IPOs" rather than pure crowdfunding.[268] As of 2024, Reg CF offerings raised approximately $343.6 million, reflecting modest utilization amid compliance costs and market risks.[269] State "blue sky" laws require notice filings in jurisdictions where investors reside, with some states offering intrastate crowdfunding exemptions under Title III Section 3(a)(11) for local offerings.[12] Enforcement actions by the SEC target fraud, with intermediaries liable for failing to screen disqualified issuers or enforce limits.[270]European Union Framework
The European Crowdfunding Service Providers Regulation (ECSPR), formally Regulation (EU) 2020/1503, was adopted on 7 October 2020 and entered into force on 10 November 2021, establishing a harmonized framework for crowdfunding services across the European Union. This regulation targets lending-based crowdfunding, which facilitates loans, and investment-based crowdfunding, involving equity or debt securities, both aimed at business financing rather than consumer or donation models.[206] It replaces prior fragmented national regimes with uniform rules to foster cross-border operations while prioritizing investor protection through requirements like mandatory risk disclosures and standardized marketing communications.[271] Crowdfunding service providers (CSPs) must obtain authorization from a national competent authority in one EU member state, enabling them to "passport" services throughout the Union without additional approvals, subject to ESMA oversight for consistency.[272] Authorization demands robust governance, including policies to manage conflicts of interest, client asset segregation, and complaint-handling procedures, with CSPs prohibited from providing investment advice or guaranteeing returns.[273] A key investor safeguard is the Key Investment Information Sheet (KIIS), a concise document detailing project risks, terms, and costs, which must be provided before investment commitments.[274] Marketing rules restrict unsubstantiated claims, mandating clear risk warnings such as the potential for total loss of invested capital.[275] The ECSPR caps crowdfunding offers at €5 million per project over a 12-month period to limit systemic risks without fully exempting platforms from prospectus requirements under the Prospectus Regulation.[276] ESMA's 2024 market report highlights steady growth, with €3.6 billion mobilized in 2023 across authorized CSPs, though it notes persistent challenges like low investor awareness and varying national implementation.[277] By mid-2025, extensions to transitional periods for legacy platforms have been implemented to ease compliance, amid industry calls for refinements to reduce administrative burdens without compromising safeguards.[278] Critics, including civil society advocates, argue that the regime's stringency risks stifling smaller platforms and innovative financing for non-profits, potentially undermining crowdfunding's role in diverse funding ecosystems.[279]International Variations and Challenges
Crowdfunding regulations exhibit significant variations across jurisdictions, reflecting differing priorities in balancing innovation, investor protection, and financial stability. In the European Union, the Regulation on European Crowdfunding Service Providers (ECSP Regulation (EU) 2020/1503), effective from November 10, 2021, establishes uniform requirements for platforms offering loans or equity-based crowdfunding, capping offerings at €5 million over 12 months and enabling passporting for cross-border operations within member states after authorization by a home state authority.[206] In contrast, China imposes stringent controls under the 2016 Guiding Opinions on Internet Financial Risks and subsequent rules, restricting equity crowdfunding to licensed platforms with limits on investor participation and emphasizing state oversight to mitigate systemic risks, resulting in a market dominated by reward-based models rather than investment-based ones.[280] India's Securities and Exchange Board (SEBI) framework, updated in 2021, permits equity crowdfunding for startups via registered platforms with investment caps of ₹10 million per issue and eligibility restricted to accredited investors, aiming to foster entrepreneurship while curbing speculation.[281] Brazil's Central Bank Resolution 88 of 2021 limits crowdfunding to small businesses with annual revenues up to BRL 40 million, focusing on debt and equity instruments under supervised intermediaries.[282] These divergences stem from national assessments of risk, with OECD analyses of 17 countries showing that while many adapt existing securities laws, others enact bespoke regimes for lending-based platforms to address information asymmetries.[283] Market dynamics amplify these regulatory differences, with North America accounting for approximately 40% of global crowdfunding volume in 2023, driven by permissive U.S. rules like Regulation Crowdfunding (Reg CF) allowing raises up to $5 million annually, compared to faster growth in Asia-Pacific where looser enforcement in some markets boosts peer-to-peer lending but heightens fraud exposure.[229] In 2024, the global crowdfunding market reached an estimated USD 1.60–2.14 billion, with equity models comprising a smaller share outside mature markets due to accreditation barriers prevalent in regions like Latin America and emerging Asia.[284][201] Cross-border challenges persist despite harmonization efforts, primarily from legal fragmentation where platforms face multiple jurisdictional requirements, including varying investor eligibility, disclosure standards, and fund safeguarding rules, complicating operations and raising compliance costs—particularly burdensome for smaller platforms under the EU's ECSP framework.[285] Enforcement of fraud is hindered by jurisdictional silos, as seen in cases where scams originating in low-regulation countries evade international recovery, exacerbated by currency fluctuations, disparate tax treatments (e.g., withholding taxes on cross-border payouts), and data privacy conflicts under regimes like GDPR versus lighter Asian standards.[286] Cultural factors, such as lower trust in digital platforms in developing regions, further impede adoption, while OECD studies highlight that without global coordination akin to IOSCO principles, investor protection lags, leading to uneven market maturity.[283][287] In practice, platforms often restrict campaigns geographically to avoid these hurdles, limiting crowdfunding's potential as a tool for global capital mobilization.[288]Emerging Trends and Future Outlook
Technological Integrations (AI, Blockchain)
Artificial intelligence (AI) has been integrated into crowdfunding platforms to enhance decision-making processes, particularly through predictive analytics for campaign success. Machine learning algorithms, such as random forests and gradient boosting, analyze historical data from platforms like Kickstarter to forecast funding outcomes, achieving predictive accuracies often exceeding 80% in peer-reviewed studies by incorporating variables like project descriptions, creator history, and funding goals.[289][290] For instance, deep learning models utilizing multimodal data—including text, images, and temporal funding patterns—have demonstrated improved performance over traditional methods, enabling platforms to advise creators on optimizing campaigns pre-launch.[291][292] AI-driven tools also facilitate personalized investor matching, where algorithms recommend projects based on user preferences and risk profiles, as seen in equity crowdfunding trends projected to expand significantly by 2026.[55] Additionally, AI chatbots and explainable AI (XAI) systems assist campaigners in real-time strategy adjustments and provide interpretable insights into failure risks, reducing informational asymmetries inherent in traditional crowdfunding.[293][284] These integrations contribute to market growth, with AI-enhanced platforms driving the global crowdfunding sector toward a projected value of USD 5.43 billion by incorporating social media and machine learning for broader investor engagement.[294] However, reliance on AI predictions requires caution, as models trained on biased historical data may perpetuate underfunding of niche or underrepresented projects, underscoring the need for diverse datasets.[295] Blockchain technology introduces decentralized mechanisms to crowdfunding via smart contracts, which automate fund disbursement and refunds based on predefined conditions, thereby minimizing intermediary involvement and associated fees.[127][296] Platforms leveraging Ethereum or compatible networks, such as those deploying Solidity-based contracts, enable transparent tracking of contributions on immutable ledgers, as exemplified by prototypes for campaign creation and withdrawal on chains like Linea in early 2025.[297] This shift supports tokenization of equity or rewards, allowing fractional ownership and global accessibility without traditional gatekeepers, with projections indicating interoperable blockchain networks will facilitate diversified tokenized portfolios in equity crowdfunding by 2026.[55][298] Despite these advantages, blockchain integrations face scalability challenges and regulatory hurdles, yet they enhance security against fraud through cryptographic verification and real-time auditing.[126] Academic reviews highlight how such systems decentralize control, automating compliance via smart contracts to enforce milestones and mitigate risks like project abandonment, potentially reshaping crowdfunding into a more efficient, trustless ecosystem.[299][300] Empirical evidence from deployed platforms suggests reduced transaction costs—often by 50% or more compared to centralized models—while fostering innovation in areas like decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) for collective funding decisions.[301]Regulatory and Market Evolutions
The global crowdfunding market expanded significantly in recent years, reaching an estimated USD 17.72 billion in 2024 and projected to grow to USD 20.46 billion in 2025, reflecting a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of approximately 15.5%, driven primarily by increased adoption of equity and reward-based models amid economic pressures favoring alternative financing.[50] This growth has been accompanied by market maturation, including the proliferation of sector-specific platforms for real estate, technology, and social causes, as well as the emergence of secondary markets for trading crowdfunded securities, which enhance liquidity but introduce new valuation complexities.[55] However, challenges persist, with some U.S. Regulation Crowdfunding (Reg CF) funding portals exiting the market due to high compliance costs, low deal volumes, and investor skepticism following high-profile failures, underscoring the uneven evolution toward sustainable scalability.[302] Regulatory frameworks have evolved to balance innovation with investor protection, particularly in major jurisdictions. In the United States, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) reported that Reg CF offerings raised over USD 1.3 billion in recent years under the USD 5 million annual cap, contributing to a cumulative total exceeding USD 10 billion since 2016, though critics argue the limits stifle growth and proposals like the 2025 Crowdfunding Capital Enhancement and Small-Business Support Act seek to amend the JOBS Act for higher thresholds and streamlined disclosures.[268] [269] In the European Union, the European Crowdfunding Service Providers Regulation (ECSPR), effective November 2023, facilitated cross-border operations with a harmonized licensing regime, but the May 2024 anti-money laundering (AML) package imposed stricter due diligence requirements, potentially increasing operational burdens on smaller platforms and threatening civil society funding channels.[251] [279] Internationally, regulatory trends point toward greater harmonization and risk mitigation, as seen in Indonesia's OJK Regulation 17/2025, which bolstered oversight of equity crowdfunding to curb fraud while promoting financial inclusion.[303] These evolutions reflect a broader shift: while markets expand through digital accessibility, regulators prioritize empirical risk data—such as SEC-documented fraud incidences in early Reg CF years—to refine rules, often favoring established intermediaries over nascent portals, though without addressing systemic barriers like artificially low funding targets that deter institutional participation.[304] Overall, ongoing reforms aim to adapt to technological integrations, but persistent disparities in enforcement and investor education highlight the causal link between regulatory stringency and market consolidation.[55]Potential Long-Term Impacts
Crowdfunding has demonstrated potential to reshape entrepreneurial finance by providing sustained access to capital for innovation-driven ventures that traditional investors overlook, thereby reducing funding gaps and fostering long-term technological and product advancements. Empirical analyses indicate that platforms enable small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to pursue R&D and market entry, with studies documenting positive correlations between crowdfunding success and subsequent innovation outputs, such as patent filings and product launches, over multi-year horizons.[305][306] This mechanism could cumulatively enhance economic productivity by diversifying funding sources beyond venture capital, which often prioritizes scalable tech sectors, allowing niche or regional innovations to persist and scale independently of institutional biases toward high-return profiles. Despite these benefits, long-term viability of crowdfunded ventures remains precarious, with post-campaign failure rates highlighting risks of capital misallocation. Research tracking equity and reward-based campaigns reveals that approximately 17.4% of initially successful projects cease operations within several years, attributed to operational challenges, market fit issues, and inadequate post-funding management rather than initial hype.[307] Such outcomes suggest crowdfunding may inflate short-term optimism but contribute to entrepreneurial churn, potentially straining retail investors who face illiquid holdings and diluted returns in surviving firms. Winner-takes-all dynamics on platforms exacerbate this, concentrating long-term value in top performers while marginalizing others, mirroring broader platform economies and risking reduced overall innovation diversity over time.[308] Persistent fraud and scam proliferation pose existential threats to crowdfunding's sustainability, eroding backer trust and prompting regulatory backlash that could stifle growth. Cases of misapplied funds, non-delivery, and fabricated projects have spillover effects, deterring participation in legitimate campaigns and amplifying skepticism toward decentralized finance models.[62] Without robust verification mechanisms, these issues may lead to market saturation in low-barrier reward categories, where oversupply of campaigns dilutes efficacy and heightens default risks, as observed in segments with high entry but low fulfillment rates.[309] Over the long term, this could necessitate heavier reliance on blockchain or AI for transparency, but unresolved ethical lapses risk confining crowdfunding to niche, low-stakes uses rather than mainstream capital formation.[6]References
- https://www.[linkedin](/page/LinkedIn).com/pulse/debt-based-crowdfunding-market-report-20252033-nxhrf
- https://p2pmarketdata.[com](/page/.com)/articles/crowdfunding-investment/
- https://www.gofundme.com/c/[blog](/page/Blog)/fundraising-site-lowest-fees
- https://www.[shopify](/page/Shopify).com/blog/crowdfunding-sites
- https://amzprep.[com](/page/.com)/kickstarter-vs-indiegogo/
