Talk:Crowdfunding/Archive 2

Content of the "Related definitions" section
The first two paragraphs of the "Related definitions" section do not seem to belong there in my opinion. They do not seem to refer to "Related definitions" as the heading suggests. These two paragraphs should be removed from this section, but I am not sure where they should go. Can anyone suggest a better section it should fall under? Or maybe a new section should be added? Jegcsc (talk) 07:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Suggested merges
Mass to Crowd: Crowd funding is a sub set of Mass funding. Makes only sense to merge a sub into a main. BenediktG (talk) 17:40, 07 October 2009

Funding to Lending: Lending is a sub set of financing or funding, excluding charity and several other funding/financing methods. Makes only sense to merge a sub into a main. BenediktG (talk) 17:40, 07 October 2009


 * Is it always true that Crowd Funding is a subset of Mass Funding? My research suggests that crowd funding might involve a mass of folk chipping in, but then it might not. If that's correct, then you could argue the converse to BenediktG's argument above. I am not qualified to resolve this and would appreciate advice from Someone Who Knows (even better, Someone Who Can Provide References To Back Up Their Opinions). Whatever the outcome, I certainly agree there's some merging to be done here. The topics Person-to-person lending and Peer-to-peer banking seem to be very close in meaning too. As a matter of interest, when I did a google search today, "mass funding" gets 8,910 hits whereas "crowd funding" gets about 64,500 hits. That suggests to me that the phrase "mass funding" is rather less common that "crowd funding". Hugh Mason (talk • contribs 16:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hugh Mason I agree with your comments. What confuses me is the term of mass funding, I cant find documented evidence to support its meaning? On the other hand, Jeff Howe wrote Crowdsourcing 'How the Power of the Crowd is Driving the Future of Business, pg 280, and discussed crowdsourcing and its four umbrella strategies CROWDFUNDING, crowdcreation, crowdwisdom and crowdvoting. Early citation of crowdfunding was made by Michael Sullivan (http://www.wordspy.com/words/crowdfunding.asp). Here are several crowdfunding websites, the Biracy project is a social experiment in crowdfunded film making (www.biracy.com), Age of Studid discuss their successes of crowdfunding film (http://www.ageofstupid.net/how_to_crowd_fund_your_film), and Kachingle is a way for readers to choose and equitably share their $5 monthly contribution with the web sites they appreciate the most (http://kachingle.com/). These clear examples of crowdfunding all involve the crowd ( or less commonly known as mass), I therefore understand this concept to be crowdfunding and not mass funding? I also agree with Hugh Masons comments that "mass funding" is rather less common then "crowd funding", therefore I ask the question should mass funding be re-directed to crowdfunding? I think it should. Please acknowledge if there is more references needed to support these statements. Allthingsonline (talk) 05:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Allthingsonline (talk) 15:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Mass-funding is a well established phenomenon and many have been Mass-funding for decades, long before Crowd-funding was coined as a networking mechanism for smaller players. Red Cross is an important example with its 97 million volunteers and invitation to contribute to its budget for more than 1.1 billion Swiss francs to fund its work in 2010. Red Cross is not inviting a definable crowd to contribute. It is inviting the masses, including countries and individuals, to contribute with resources as money and tasks, in form of gifts - in their global, continuous Mass-funding. In my opinion it would be turning things upside down to merge Mass-funding into Crowd-funding. To say that crowd is sometimes mass is like saying small is sometimes large. It is simply wrong. We need both these terms if we want to be able to express us clearly. It is not enough for us to say wind when we mean hurricane. But if some merge is to be done, it makes only sense to merge a sub into a main.

BenediktG(talk 15:00, 02 February 2010 (UTC)

''There are more comments on the merge from BenediktG and myself at the end of. I've left a note at with Wikiproject Economics seeking more input. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 05:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)''

Thanks again to Hunter for his attention. Hope Hunter's input invitation to the discussions about first paragraph in Crowd-funding and the suggested merge, will soon make the number of participants in these discussions change from being a group to be a crowd - so to speak. :) To give Hunter's invitation time to bear fruits, the suggested merge of Mass- into Crowd- should be placed on Hold. BenediktG(talk) 10:59, 04 February 2010 (UTC)

I considered cleaning up Mass funding, but I wouldn't know where to start. Indeed, I believe it should be gone, merged into crowd funding with junk removed or sourced. Thank you for the passionate effort BenediktG, but it seems to me that most of Mass funding is redefinition of accepted terms. A few cases in point: appealing to masses for tasks performed is crowdsourcing, and the Red Cross example appears to describe as much (see similar crowdsourcing examples, like Peer to Patent and Stimulus Watch). Also, "crowd" is not used to restrict to a "limited" group of people. Most important to the issue at hand, I don't see any different between mass funding (as described here, I unfortunately have not seen it elsewhere) and crowdfunding as I've encountered. I'm with Hugh and Allthingsonline: mass funding seems to come out of nowhere, as suggested through Google and Google Scholar: Perhaps some sources might help in understanding where this is coming from? --Organisciak (talk) 04:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Another quick point. Googling Mass funding gives you the Wikipedia page, and some upcoming website called mass-funding.org that was registered by a Benedikt G a few days before the wiki article went up. There's also a Twitter account, created on the same day as the Mass funding article was. Count that as a solid vote from me. Once again, no disrespect intended, but Wikipedia is not for creating new terms to advertise outside ventures. --Organisciak (talk) 04:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Organisciak for providing a fresh view. The Red Cross might not be a great example of crowdsourcing/crowd funding anyway, because if I understand Wikipedia's article correctly, they actually get much of their funding from countries and organisations.  Over recent months, several contributors have independently tried to find sources for the the mass funding article without success, and most of that article's content was duplicated at Crowd funding and/or Crowdsourcing.  Accordingly I've redirected the Mass funding article to this article. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 14:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggest merging the "Intellectual property exposure" section with the "Risks and Barriers" subsection of "Pros and Cons". Does anybody have an opinion on whether this should be done? Jegcsc (talk) 06:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Crowd-resourcing
Crowdfunding is an emerging field, so I'm not sure if new types of crowdfunding platforms belong as new sections, or in the beginning in defining the term. Crowd-resourcing is an emerging type of platform wherein users can do more than just raise funds. ioby, sometimes referred to as a civic crowdfunding platform, developed this model so that people leading projects in public space could raise funds, recruit volunteers and share ideas. I'm Erin Barnes, one of the cofounders of ioby, so I know I have a conflict of interest, but we've had a ton of press that describes how we work, like this lengthy story in Next American City. http://nextcity.org/daily/entry/forefront-excerpt-when-were-all-urban-planners — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erinbarnes (talk • contribs) 16:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Synergy of Design Patents and Crowdfunding
User:Ronz correctly points out that this is a self cite:
 * Design patents in particular, have been effective at protecting against on-line counterfeits of crowdfunded projects.Nowotarski, Mark, “The Power of Policing Trademarks and Design Patents”, IPWatchdog, 25 September 2013.

I will leave it here to see if there are any seconds. If anyone has any questions about the content I would be happy to address them. --Nowa (talk) 23:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for following up. Are there other sources we could use to verify adding the same or similar content? --Ronz (talk) 17:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Good question. A Google search of "crowdfunding" "design patent" came up with these two references mentioning that design patents can be used to protect crowdfunding projects.  .  I don't know that anyone else has actually published a case study.--Nowa (talk) 01:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Merger from "civic crowdfunding"
I propose merging "civic crowdfunding" into this article. Basically, how is "civic crowdfunding" any different than "crowd funding"? (Indeed, is "crowdfunding" different than "crowd funding"?) In the world of philanthropy, crowd funding is simply a method by which donations are obtained; it is a type of fundraising or charity for various worthwhile goals. The goals of the fundraising may differ; e.g., earthquake relief for Haiti, medical care for a sick child, a civic project such as a statue, etc. People can ring bells at store doors, go door to door, send out mailers, etc., but the ultimate object/endpoint is the same – to raise money. In the world of non-charity fundraising, the goal may be to start up a new business, either for profit or non-profit. Again, the goal may differ, but the crowd funding method is the same – small or large donations/contributions/participation by individuals through the Internet. As this article is about the crowd funding method, it should be the only one devoted to the subject. (And it can distinguish between the different goals of crowd funding.) Also, it can list the various crowd funding avenues which exist. As crowd funding is largely an Internet methodology, it remains a focused article. (There were no people who said "We are using 'crowd funding' to raise money for the pedestal for the Statue of Liberty.) There are already different articles which discuss the different goals of fundraising; e.g., the charities of different types and the various methods raising of capital. – S. Rich (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * So would you propose merging preference revelation into public finance? --Xerographica (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Entirely different issues. Please don't seek to muddy the water with arguments that do not address this proposed merger. You can and should say "Support", "Oppose", or whatever. – S. Rich (talk) 23:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to muddy the water...I'm trying to understand your logic. Civic crowdfunding is obviously a type of crowdfunding.  Therefore it can certainly have its own section within the crowdfunding article.  However, you seem to feel that it can't also have its own article.  But there are plenty of topics...like preference revelation...that have their own sections in other articles but also have their own dedicated articles. Why is it acceptable in that case but not in this case?  --Xerographica (talk) 00:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "Preference revelation" is not a type of "public finance"; if it didn't deserve a separate article, it could be rationally be merged into revealed preference, or possibly in to one of the public choice articles, and it shouldn't have a large section in more than one of the "public choice" articles, but it's not the same thing. (I don't think it should have a large section in any of the public choice articles, but I could be convinced otherwise.) — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Rich also suggested merging preference revelation into revealed preference. But he wasn't able to explain why it was more preferable to merge preference revelation into revealed preference rather than into contingent valuation... Talk:Preference_revelation.  So let me ask you. Why would you redirect "preference revelation" to "revealed preference" rather than to "contingent valuation"?  --Xerographica (talk) 01:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

These are tangents – tenuous tangents. Would all interested editors please address the topic at hand. Should civic crowdfunding be merged? I've provided a rationale: crowdfunding is the means of raising funds and "civic" or charity or business capital, whatever, is the beneficiary of such funding. The one article can handle the topic quite well. – S. Rich (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * They are tangents, and even if X's comments on preference revelation were correct, they wouldn't apply here &mdash; there is no other appropriate subject of which civic crowdfunding is a subset. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Rich, given the quantity and quality of reliable sources on the topic of civic crowdfunding, I strongly oppose the merge. But because I'm still trying to understand your logic...I'd be interested to know why you'd prefer to merge civic crowdfunding into this article rather than into public finance.  Speaking of which, how are you and Rubin doing on that article?  Making a lot of significant improvements?  Talk:Public_finance  --Xerographica (talk) 01:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply by OP – If you think that merging civic crowdfunding into public finance is a good idea, then say so. (But that is not the proposal presented.) In any event, don't attribute positions to me which I have not presented, especially vis-a-vis the rationale presented above. As for your questions, I do not find them helpful – they do nothing, absolutely nothing, to advance the discussion here. – S. Rich (talk) 06:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Civic crowdfunding should definitely have a section in public finance...but it absolutely should not be merged into public finance. Regarding my questions...that's really too bad that you don't find them helpful.  But you're certainly more than welcome to stop harassing me... Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive786. --Xerographica (talk) 06:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Mild Oppose - The usual rule is that you group similar concepts into a single article until the article gets too long (at about 50,000 characters) - at that point, you find the most prominent parts of the concept and spin them off into their own articles - replacing them with short summaries and a "See Also" link to the new article. Have them refer back to the parent prominently (usually in the lede). Merging related articles is the same process in reverse.  If the merged article would be significantly less than 50,000 characters - then maybe it's worth merging to make a stronger, more substantial article - if the result would be significantly over 50,000 - then probably not. Right now, Crowd funding is 48kB and Civic crowdfunding is 6kB - unless the merger resulted in almost no increase in size of the present article, this would seem to be a bad idea because the first thing we'd want to do after the merger would be to split it again. SteveBaker (talk) 01:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply by OP – this article needs work. It is full of jargon and promotional material, perhaps C&P'd from sources. I've added a hatnote for the comparison article which is a better avenue to describe the different projects out there. (Indeed, culling individual projects from this article would help avoid UNDUE.) Good editing would reduce the kB count and produce a better product. – S. Rich (talk) 02:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - What about crowd funding in video games? SteveBaker (talk) 01:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply by OP – worthy of a mention in this article, but is sufficiently independent of the basic article to merit its own article. – S. Rich (talk) 02:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - I think we can agree that civic crowdfunding is a subset of crowdfunding; it is a type that relates to a specific, relatively new (compared to crowdfunding itself) application, yet holds a lot of potential as a prominent concept itself. That being said, the concept has not be effected enough, nor researched enough, to be considered proven and demonstrable and to justify it as a viable, mainstream method rather than a fad or niche application; the concepts alone are still largely considered buzzwords, with nebulous meanings that are yet to be fully and accurately defined. If the biggest objection to the merger is the digital size, I agree with Rich: the only things of value on the civic crowdfunding page are some of the See Also material and snippets of phrasing. The Modern examples seem like one person's narrow view of the topic and heavily reliant on recent news, rather than a representative overview of the areas in which civic crowdfunding can contribute. Already, the concept is hinted at or alluded to in the crowd_funding section, and just needs formulation and formalization from existing material. Sothisislife101 (talk) 02:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Civic crowd funding is indeed a subset. It should be merged. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Civic crowdfunding differs fundamentally in that it is an outlet of public policy rather than a practice of businesses and Non-profit organizations. A better question than merger is whether we should spin out a page for equity crowdfunding to differentiate from philanthropic crowdfunding. We're already suffering from bloat by combining these two types of crowdfunding when they are significantly different in their functions, purposes and processes. Celtechm (talk) 01:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, and merge restored from August 2013. There is no reason the paragraph in civic crowdfunding couldn't be added to the section here on "Philanthropy and civic projects"; the article is moderately long, but spinning off a paragraph serves little purpose.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Definition
The definition section of this article was previously unsourced and the second half needs citation. I have added a sourced definition from a document previously referenced in the entry. Please do not replace it or undo with unsourced/poorly cited material.

According to the sources, crowdfunding technically "usually involves the Internet" which makes it confusing with references to Mozart, etc. The cited materials claim that it evolved from crowdsourcing which seems to be a more accurate depiction of Mozart, Pulitzer, etc. I suggest that we move those examples to the crowdsourcing entry and explain that crowdfunding - which form the sources clearly seems to be an "Internet" thing - evolved from crowdsourcing which before computers was a way to do this.

Let's streamline this article and clarify exactly what corwdfunding is based on valid references from experts in the field. It also seems to have a lot of advert tone to it. A definition, history, types of crowdfunding seems like it would be much more efficient.

I propose we move these two paragraphs to the crowdsourcing article

''An early precursor of the crowdsourcing business model was praenumeration, a subscription business model, which was used in the 17th century to finance book prints. Similar to crowdsourcing, an additional benefit to donors was offered like a mention on the title page.[citation needed] Then in 1884, the American Committee for the Statue of Liberty ran out of funds for the Statue’s pedestal. Newspaper publisher Joseph Pulitzer urged the American public to donate money toward the pedestal in his newspaper New York World. Pulitzer raised over US$100,000 in six months. More than 125,000 people contributed to the cause, with most donations being US$1 or less.[6][7]

Crowdsourcing was also used in music as far back as the 18th century. In 1783, Mozart used crowdsourcing to raise money to perform three concertos in a Viennese concert hall. In exchange for backing this effort, Mozart offered manuscripts of the concertos. He did not initially meet his funding goal, but two years after his first attempt, 176 backers pledged enough money to finance the performance.[8]''

I also propose that we remove the unsourced "definition" in the second part of the opening statement unless a proper citation is provided.

~ I found an oxford dictionary definition of crowdfunding and am posting it now with citation. Let's now make this article consistent with the definition - ie. Internet. Sound good? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.189.179 (talk • contribs)


 * Well, no. The definitions say that crowdfunding "usually" or "typically" involves the Internet; that doesn't make it part of the definition. It would be nice to have definitions separating crowdfunding from (financial) crowdsourcing, but crowdsourcing includes models where non-financial support may be provided by "crowds", and  also "especially" from online communities.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Exactly, I agree.  The definition is still a little fuzzy but seems to necessitate the internet, social media or online community in some way in order to differentiate.  Otherwise I am not sure if this article even needs to exist.  It could simply say "is a synonym for patronage" and we are done.  The edits made are already helping to clarify it for sure.  I also agree 100% that introducing "crowdsourcing" into this article adds to the confusion.   Further the references to antiquated patronage instances further complicates things.  Anything poorly cited should also be immediately taken out.   There seem to be lots of adverts here.  Thanks for joining in.   Let's work together to get this in shape!    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.189.179 (talk) 03:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * ARuben - Excellent edit for definition. You nailed it!  Short and to the point.  Thank you for your help with this.  What do you think about the references to Pulitzer, Mozart, etc. ?  It seems to me that those entries are less about crowdfunding and more about patronage.  Perhaps we can edit this article to say something like "Patronage was early precursor to Crowdfunding and Crowdsourcing" and reference the Patronage article - moving those over to that article.  I just find it confusing to read that crowdfunding is "typically over the Internet" and involves a "platform" and see those references which are actually to patronage since there was clearly no internet, social media, platforms whatsoever at that time.  I see the rationale in trying to show a connection but is was patronage which actually was  precursor to lots of things including "not for profit" coprporations.  Let me know your thoughts.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.189.179 (talk) 03:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Another thought. THe Mozart reference is actually to a blog on the site Kickstarter.  I think this should be removed as it assumes the statement that Crowdfunding was actually a precursor (they talk about the Pope Kickstarting it) and it is pretty self serving and advert like.  I don't think it adds anything but could be useful in the Praenumeration or patronage article.  Here is what I propose:

1. remove the bulk of the Pulitzer reference to a history section in Preanumeration and possibly mention that some consider preanumeration to be an early precursor to Crowdfunding. 2. Move the Mozart reference to the patronage article for the reasons stated above.

The reason being is that neither could have possibly used the Internet or a "platform" in the context of crowdfunding. It is all good information but maybe references to other more appropriate articles so we can get the history section down to a manageable size. it is a pretty big article! 74.71.189.179 (talk) 02:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Working on the history section now as well.  It is a bit convoluted and long so I am going to propose that we either do strict chronological list of "events" or split it up into two sections: Companies and significant campaigns which will each be chronological.  I do think a distinction of company from campaign is smart.   I also think that "signicant campaigns" could be asking for one huge advert.  Maybe break that out into another page and reference it?  Same with a list of companies.  Perhaps the first few pioneers and then break out into another page to let folks list the next 500+. I'm not sure.  Need some suggestions here if you have any.   Looking way better already though. 74.71.189.179 (talk) 02:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the place to list all of the sites by category is Comparison_of_crowd_funding_services. The table can be modified and replicated for all of the various types of crowdfunding sites. 74.71.189.179 (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Did some refining and re-organizing especially in the History section. I think it was best to fold in the "Music"and Film" sections in to the "Significant Campaigns" section else we have a huge list as this article grows. Most of the information was left in.  I think it will be much easier to add sub-categories to the Significant Campaigns section with a handful of references (significant) under each.  The Kickstarter section is definitely important as they are currently the biggest player but perhaps this warrants a "Significant Companies" section (earliest, highest grossing or number of projects, etc.) instead of a list of all of their top campaigns.  Seems like an advert.  Let's discuss. 74.71.189.179 (talk) 17:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

History vs Early Campaigns + contribution of Marillion
This article was published today (I have no connection). I thought this might be useful as an additional reference.


 * http://www.virgin.com/music/how-marillion-pioneered-crowdfunding-in-music

The article suggests that Marillion effectively invented crowdfunding, in the modern sense, and that this will be considered one of their greatest legacies. Having noted this on Talk:Marillion I came here to share the same new reference.

I was surprised to see that this page includes a 'History' section, and then a separate 'Early Campaigns' section, the latter having TWO entries for 1997 that should surely be moved (or dare I say copied) to the History section? Until I burrowed deep into the article, I had to assume that Marillion's contribution had been overlooked. Clearly it hasn't, but as a Wikipedia editor (rather than just a long-standing Marillion fan!) I would suggest that the History section should be expanded to at least mention the 1997 entries from 'Early Campaigns'. (Remember, users do not necessarily read an article from start to finish, and any 'History' section is very likely to be read in isolation.)

EdJogg (talk) 15:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC) Not watching, but contactable via email.

Equity crowdfunding
This section has outgrown the Crowdfunding page and has now been moved to its own article. This section of the talk page is also now available on the talk page of the [Equity Crowdfunding] page. Peterjthomson (talk) 02:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Some recent edits have created a very long section on some very specific US legislation Crowd_funding. IMHO this is way too long for this article; and seems to be covering a specific section of a much larger bill. As such, this should be added to a wikipedia article about that particular bill, and a short sentence or two summarizing the relationship/importance to crowd funding as a topic added, with a link could be added to this article. Might the editor in question consider making these revisions? --Karl.brown (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. Feel free to slash and burn. --Nowa (talk) 15:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I fired up the chainsaw and got to work.--Nowa (talk) 15:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

This section has factual errors, omissions, and (I believe) unnecessary inclusions. Examples: I was gonna just go ahead and "be bold" editing this entry, but these are not minor changes, and I have a few others, so I wanted to discuss first. I agree with Nowa that this section should be shorter, but the story of the movement behind the JOBS Act's crowdfunding provision (Title III) is instructive and interesting, and may merit an entry of its own. Pspinrad (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * (Error) Kassan, Spinrad (that's me), and Ringelman first petitioned the SEC for a crowdfunding exemption in June 2010, and Spinrad discussed the issue at the SEC forum in November 2010, not 2011 as stated in article.
 * (Omission) The crowdfunding legislation in the JOBS Act was not based on the Entrepreneur Access to Capital Act (H.R.2930, McHenry, R-NC), which was the first crowdfunding exemption bill. The original version of the JOBS Act included H.R.2930, but the Senate swapped it out for different language that more closely resembled a later bill, the CROWDFUND Act (S.1970, Merkley, D-OR). It is this version that was subsequently passed by the house and signed into law. See Steven Bradford, Promise Unfulfilled, Securities Regulation Law Journal, page 5.
 * (Omission) Rep. McHenry cites the inspiration for H.R.2930 as the BuyaBeerCompany.com campaign, which launched in Nov 2009 to gather pledges for the purchase of the Pabst Brewing Company. See House Oversight Committee hearing, June 26, 2012, "The JOBS Act in Action", McHenry comments starting at 59:00.
 * (Unnecessary inclusions) While the Startup Exemption crew should be mentioned for their leadership in lobbying, the who/where/when of the first meeting of the organization CFIRA and their scheduling of two appearances and interviews with Rep. Patrick McHenry may be too low-level for a general encyclopedia entry on the topic of crowdfunding.
 * Pspinrad - Dive in.--Nowa (talk) 12:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Having very recently started familiarizing myself with crowdsourcing and crowdfunding, I've come to realize that there are differences in legislations between countries that one really should know about. At the moment, I feel that the general part Crowd_funding and the following part regarding the US are good. However, country-specific information is needed, especially on European countries. I will try and improve the section on Finland, but some legislation-savvy help on the other sections would be much appreciated. Savolmi (talk) 06:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

With the JOBS act and international adoption, is it perhaps time for Equity Crowdfunding to have its own page? Peterjthomson (talk) 23:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I consider removing direct links in the Ireland section since these can be seen as purely commercial promotion. Alex_editorwiki

Terminology
I think that, from a terminology perspective, "crowd financing" is becoming the term used to refer to what this article calls "equity-based crowd funding". I think there should be a separate section within this article called "Crowd Financing". The SEC will soon open up crowd financing to average-income individuals. When that happens, if crowd financing takes off, then I think there may need to be two separate Wikipedia articles: "Crowd Funding" and "Crowd Financing". Also, the Wikipedia article on the JOBS Act could do a better job of explaining that it is referring to crowd financing. --Westwind273 (talk) 23:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Patent disputes
The patent disputes section was recently vandalize by Ronz where most of the section was deleted leaving only one instance. From what I can tell all of the information in there is relevant and well referenced. Please do not vandalize this page. Use the talk section to constructively edit if there is any sort of wiki violation but do not destroy other people's work. 64.131.184.113 (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The bias is in the content. Please WP:FOC. --Ronz (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ronz. This is a PATENT DISPUTES section. There are more than one notable patent dispute cases happening and Ronz seems to think that it is biased to include anything other than one between Kickstarter and Artistshare.  Kickstarter is actually in three patent laswuits at the moment.  why only list one?  Please stop your destructive editing 74.71.160.119 (talk) 01:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * IP address, instead of making accusations, it is much better to simply ask questions and discuss. Ronz, I have been watching the back and forth on this and I don't understand the UNDUE argument.  Would you please take a bit more time and explain your perspective on this?  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's much worse than just undue. The section needs to be rewritten, even what is left. It's unencyclopedic on multiple counts, especially WP:SOAP, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:BATTLE.
 * The ip is simply making a very poor section much worse. --Ronz (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I get it that you are maybe in a hurry, but throwing a bunch of more PAG names at it is not helping me to see what the problems are. Sorry it is not obvious to me. Please actually articulate the problems you see - take some time, try to explain so we can see what you mean.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think your characterization is inappropriate, if not disruptive of proper talk page discussion.
 * I mean that the section is clearly written without regard to our fundamental policies. --Ronz (talk) 20:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * for fuck's sake that is obvious by now. We know that you think this violates a shitload of policies.  We are asking you to  explain why. This is  wikipedia 101 stuff, Ronz. Please explain yourself. Jytdog (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes Ronz, instead of just trashing it and throwing PAG names this needs to be discussed and resolved. If you look at the history of this whole section you see a lot of back and forth.  There needs to be a reason why for some reason you don't like this entry as opposed to the rest of it which is essentially drawn from the same sources.  Please stop your edit warring so that we can get this (and the other articles you are warring on) in shape 64.131.184.113 (talk) 23:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm focusing on policies and content. Please do the same if we want to settle this.

Jytdog, "Please explain yourself" Maybe start with choosing something from the article that might hold up to scrutiny under our policies.

IP: WP:BATTLE seems to be your only interest in being here. --Ronz (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Ronz. you have said precisely nothing so far. Your argument is just name-calling ("violates PAG") which is the lowest kind of argument you can make, and makes it impossible to evaluate your claim much less respond.  Like I said this is Wikipedia 101.  If you need a refresher please read WP:TALK. "it is always a good idea to explain your views; it is less helpful for you to voice an opinion on something and not explain why you hold it. Explaining why you have a certain opinion helps to demonstrate its validity to others and reach consensus."  Please explain how the content violates these policies.  It is not hard to say something meaningful like "Companies sue each other all the time; there is nothing important about ongoing litigation - once a verdict is rendered or settlement is made in a given case, and a secondary source reports on how that effects crowdfunding in general (the topic of this article), it might be worth discussing here.   Its presence now is UNDUE".  That is my best guess as to the kind of problem you are seeing but I don't know,  because you have said precisely nothing.  If you actually explained yourself, the IP could respond and I could decide if you have a point or not. Jytdog (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Please WP:FOC
 * "Take some time, try to explain so we can see" why you think the content should be included. I'm focusing on this section because it contains spammed content, the quote by Camelio, that is cherry picked from the reference to promote the pov of Camelio over that of the source itself. You are aware that the source starts with Kickstarter's accusations that ArtistShare is a patent troll? Or that Kickstarter's concerns were not dismissed, hence the ruling being called a small victory for them? In the light of the source, the quote is very much cherry picked to turn the pov away from what the reference reports. --Ronz (talk) 16:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The last sentence finally provides some information, thanks. I just removed the section on litigation per the reasoning I provided above.  I'll repeat it here: Companies sue each other all the time; there is rarely something important about ongoing litigation - once a verdict is rendered or settlement is made in a given case, and a secondary source reports on how that effects crowdfunding in general (the topic of this article), it might be worth discussing here.   Its presence now is UNDUE."  I also removed the section on some patents held by some companies, on the basis that lots of tech companies hold patents; this was a random list of a few patents held by 2 companies (with one company named with no source provided).   I'll add that this article is about the field in general.  Litigation has to affect the field in general to discussed in this article.  If anybody wants the content in this article, please provide here, for discussion, the reliable sources that discuss the impact of the litigation on the field in general.   Jytdog (talk) 17:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated.
 * It may turn out that some of the litigation will result in outcomes worth noting in this article. I'm not against including some mention of the likely ones now, provided we have references indicating probable outcomes would indeed be noteworthy and that we present the material by strictly following of NPOV so we avoid any of the SOAP and BATTLE problems that this article tends to attract. --Ronz (talk) 17:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * @Jytdog - agreed. I think that is the right move.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.160.119 (talk) 18:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Campaign modes, timeframe, multiple campaigns and relaunch possibility
I checked briefly, and didn't see anything directly addressing the title items, although two modes (KiA and AON) are mentioned in another section. Campaign modes:
 * Keep-it-All (KiA): No matter the duration or goal, what you raise you keep (minus fees)
 * All-or-Nothing (AON): You only get the donations if you reach your goal.
 * Continuous/Ongoing: The campaign has no deadline and is often used to support ongoing projects (such as online comics, TV shows in production, etc.), or offers a button to put on your page (such as Centup.org).
 * Bounty: A fee is paid for solving a problem (such as designing new software, fixing a bug in an invention or software, etc.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReveurGAM (talk • contribs) 12:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Timeframes available vary from site to site. Most often, from the few sites I've checked out, 30 or 60 days is the norm. Having KiA or AON mode usually means you'll have a timeframe, but some crowdfunding websites offer timeframe-free choices. Obviously, continuous/ongoing usually has no timeframe.

Multiple campaigns are allowed on some sites, not recommended but allowed on some, and forbidden on others.

Some sites allow you to relaunch your campaign if you don't reach your goal within the timeframe given.

I just happen to be trying to figure out where to put my campaign, so I thought I'd share these tidbits I have picked up. I hope someone can follow through.ReveurGAM (talk) 10:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * As I was working through a long list of possibles, I came across some information:
 * There is now loan-based crowdfunding (FundedByMe, Kiva, LendingClub), in addition the equity, donation-based and rewards-based.
 * Variable/flexible funding = KiA; Fixed Funding/Conditional Giving=AoN

Aside from KiA and Aon, there are also ongoing and bounty. ReveurGAM (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Payment services

 * A significant factor in using crowdfunding is which payment type/services are available on a given site, yet this is not mentioned.


 * Bank transfer
 * Wire transfer
 * Credit card payment
 * Check/cheque
 * WePay is only available to US bank account holders
 * Stripe only serves certain countries and, although the list is extensive, it is far from complete
 * Payza also serves many countries, but how it can receive and send funds is dependent on where your bank account is.
 * Coinjar accepts currencies from around the world, including Bitcoins, but I didn't find what countries are served.
 * PayPal has restrictions in place regarding what types of crowdfunding they'll allow in conjunction with their services.  For PayPal in Indonesia, while they may serve most of the world, they only allow reward-based campaigns that don't offer things like equity, ownership, money, raffle tickets, etc., and while they allow drives for charitable organizations, they do not allow charitable drives for individuals.
 * As an example of this (PayPal's restrictions for Indonesia), I was only able to find 9 crowd-funding sites that could serve Indonesian campaign owners. I do not know if these restrictions are because of Indonesian laws.
 * Apple Pay is currently only available in the US, but may be available in Canada in the near future.
 * GoCardless is for UK bank account owners
 * Sofort only works for holders of certain EU-country bank accounts
 * First Giving is explicitly for donating to charitable organizations
 * Mangopay serves less than 14% of the world's countries (it has blacklisted about 180)


 * Some payment services will accept money from any source, but will only disburse to certain places, and there may be other restrictions.


 * It is common for a crowdfunding site to have only one way to accept payments, although some will offer 2, 3, 4 or even more (Pozible, for example, offers PayPal, Coinjar, Stripe, credit cards, debit cards, bank transfers and even has their own "Credits"). However, for disbursement of funds, they generally have fewer choices than for incoming donations (using Pozible again, payouts can be made by PayPal, Coinjar, Stripe or bank transfer), with 1 being the minimum.


 * Please do note the following.


 * That while some websites will charge a fee for the receipt of payment (via credit card, usually), and some will charge for disbursement (via bank/wire transfer usually), there are some sites that do not charge any fees (again, Pozible is an example of one that doesn't charge such fees; Indiegogo is one that charges for wire transfers out and CC payments in).
 * A few sites will collect the donations at the time they are pledged and then disburse them at the appointed time: when the financial goal or the deadline is met, whichever comes first, although some sites will do both, disbursing the funds at the point they equal the financial goal, and then if any addition funds are given, they are sent immediately.
 * Of these sites, how they handle the money while they hold it varies. For example: RocketHub keeps the money in a US-based non-interest-accruing bank account, while Crowdfunder UK holds theirs in an interest-accruing account, and keeps the interest for itself on top of its fees.   Indiegogo refuses to state what they do with held funds.


 * Other sites do not themselves handle the donations at all, and thus have no such fees. Instead, they take their fee after the fact by invoicing your payment service account.
 * How disbursement is handled in terms of lump sum or separate transactions (one-by-one) varies from site to site. In addition, how long it takes to get from the site to the campaign owner varies from almost immediately to up to 15 days.  The disbursement method is usually, but not always, determined by the campaign mode:
 * Bounty - lump sum
 * Ongoing - separate
 * KIA - separate, but rarely lump sum
 * AoN - lump sum
 * Exceptions, of course, exist.


 * When funds are taken from donors' accounts also varies but tends to follow the mode.
 * A donation taken at pledge is the best because it minimizes the risk of the donor's account having insufficient funds. However, if it is taken when the campaign ends, aside from that risk, the middle man (be it the site or payment service) cannot accrue interest.
 * There is a disadvantage of separate payments, which is that most payment services collect a %age and a flat fee. Thus, if the disbursement is done as a lump sum, the total fees paid out will be lower than if each donation is handled separately because there's only one flat fee.  If there are numerous small donations, the amount taken by the payment service due to the equally numerous flat fees could end up being a considerable amount.


 * Sorry if I repeated myself. Most of this is discoverable on individual crowdfunding site's FAQs, help and support, although I sometimes had to query customer service.


 * I hope this will help the editors.ReveurGAM (talk) 10:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I updated the above. ReveurGAM (talk) 07:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

War Bonds?
Does it make sense to anyone to add a brief section to the article regarding war bonds as being an early form of crowdfunding? As the article on that topic mentions, they have been around a long time (certainly before any form of the internet existed) but the concept is remarkably close to the concept explained in this article.  Etamni &#124;  &#9993;  03:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Other things for inclusion in the article
While researching crowdfunding, I came across a few other things that may need to be included in this article. Since I have been learning for my own purposes, the list below is not all-inclusive. I hope this will be of use to the editors curating this article. I'm sorry, but I have my plate full right now so I cannot directly contribute.

The following topics can be considered:
 * Who Can Start a Campaign and receive disbursements
 * Countries supported for donors' location
 * Countries supported for campaigners' location
 * Individuals, business entities, NGOs, and charities
 * Types of currency accepted and where they are accepted (eg: USD accepted worldwide, CA$, GBP & AU$ only accepted in their respective countries)
 * The fees which are charged (I've seen 0-10% so far)
 * Fees for donors
 * Fees for campaigners
 * Voluntary donations only (YouCaring does this)
 * Differences in fees based on:
 * modes (eg: Indiegogo takes a % if you fail using flexible funding but none with fixed funding)
 * success in reaching goal (eg: Indiegogo takes 9% if you fail, 4% if you succeed; RocketHub takes 8% if you fail, 4% if you succeed; YouCaring never takes anything)


 * External payment service fees
 * PayPal, WePay, Payza, Stripe: usually around $2.9%+US$.30/GBP1.9%+20p
 * Credit cards: about 3%-5%
 * Wire transfers: usually US$25


 * Refund policies (most sites offer nothing; FundAnything offers $100/person and $10,000 aggregate in the case of fraud/misleading campaigns)


 * Minimum amount of donations:
 * Before the campaign will be displayed publicly (eg: FundAnything requires $10 before it's shown to the public)
 * Before the campaign will become a "highlighted" campaign


 * Other criteria that will cause the campaign to receive preferential treatment/extra coverage by the site
 * TV coverage (eg: RocketHub has a partnership with A&E)
 * Headline/Frontpage coverage


 * Private campaigns (they are not displayed to the public and so a donor must be given access via a link or password)
 * Campaign types and categories
 * Private fundraising to help with bills for education, medical, etc.
 * Charitable to be donated to an organization
 * Business/Inventions: development, R&D, startup, expansion, new product, patent fees, etc.
 * Creative effort: music, art, books, films, TV shows, etc.
 * Activism: environmental, human rights, poverty, etc.
 * Political: supporting a candidate or party
 * Education (to help teachers and schools)
 * Et cetera ReveurGAM (talk) 11:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please scroll down to see my latest notes 18 Improving the table for possible items to include in the table. I intend to put up information on my blog at a later date about my research so that it might possibly be referenced by Wikipedia editors. ReveurGAM (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Please scroll down to see my latest notes 18 Improving the table for possible items to include in the table. I intend to put up information on my blog at a later date about my research so that it might possibly be referenced by Wikipedia editors. ReveurGAM (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

This is not a how-to for crowdfunding. 96.28.100.197 (talk) 16:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Tone problem
The quotation beginning "WePay faces tremendous scrutiny..." is not written in an authoritative ("encyclopedic") style and is therefore in abeyance of Wikipedia policy for inclusion. I sic-templated an ungrammatical use of "around" (this invisible mark-up warns copyeditors that the error is quoted and prevents bots from correcting it), but the passage also contains two instances of "&". May I suggest that someone well-informed about the matter under consideration in that section crop this passage down to remove the problematic usage and then summarise, if necessary, the excised text? Cheers, Laodah 23:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

By region
I think this article needs a by-region section. For example, I just read an article on crowdfunding in Korea, and I think such articles exist for many countries (particularly when we consider non-English sources). Any thoughts on that? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Zack Brown's Potato Salad
According to the main article - Zack Brown raised US$55,000 from over 6900 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.[57]

My question is this, is this the guy from the Zack Brown band? 173.86.14.32 (talk) 20:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Section about each Country
the reception of this form of capital raising really depend on which country we are discussing. Just thinking that someone add something for each major countries. It is very interesting how the framework of each has touched this form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FOSBusters (talk • contribs) 11:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Crowdfunding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cfo-insight.com/financing-liquidity/alternative-finance/crowdfunding-sideshow-or-headline-act

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Crowdfunding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.forbes.com/sites/hsbc/2014/08/05/crowdfundings-untapped-potential-in-emerging-markets/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Where does this fit?
Ethereum was funded with a crowdfunded "tokensale" of the new value token called "Ether", a Bitcoin-like cryptocurrency where the funders, who offered Bitcoin at time of the tokensale (rate varied between approximately 2000 Ether per Bitcoin at the start of the sale, decreasing to something like 1300 toward the end (some 30 or 60 days later); sale was done in July/August 2014. Goal of sale was to fund the development of the new Ethereum distributed computing platform (c. 80% of the $18 million raised went to that), with about 10% to the Ethereum Foundation (a non-profit trade organization) and about 10% "premined" to reward the 80+ folks who had worked on development prior to Aug 2014.

Question: where does something like this fit in the taxonomy in this article? Not strictly a reward-based, not really traditional equity, etc. N2e (talk) 04:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't fit anywhere as it stands because it is unsourced. Outside of that, I don't reckon it fits anywhere as this article is about crowdfunding not the companies that received it.  It would balloon crazily if it this article included such content. Jytdog (talk) 19:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Huh? Of course is would have to be sourced to be in the article, per ordinary WP:V policy. So that straw man is irrelevant to my question.


 * Since that sort of token sale is occurring from time to time, and some subset of those token sales are quite notable (with multiple reliable sources), and since it is unquestionably a type of crowdfunding (value is being raised, from a crowd, for funding a project), the question is, where would this particular sort of crowdfunding fit it this article?


 * That's a serious question to editors of this article. The existing section structure seems to not let it fit in any particular section.  Was just trying to get other editor input into the question before adding a notable crowdfund or two to the article prose.  CHeers.  N2e (talk) 15:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Glancing at Ethereum, I see no reason why it should be mentioned in this article at all. As no sources have been identified after the need was identified, we seem to be done with this. --Ronz (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I am editor of this article, N2e, and I responded to the substance - it doesn't fit b/c we don't have a section for companies funded through crowdsourcing because the article would balloon crazily; this is about crowdfunding, not companies that have been crowdfunded. It would be like listing all the companies that have had an IPO at the initial public offering article.  Jytdog (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, let's start over. I guess I asked my question uncarefully and unclearly. My fault. I'm not at all suggesting that Ethereum, or any of that particular prose in my earlier question, go into this article.

My attempt was only to say that there is a class of crowdfunding now being done, where the output of the crowdsale is ownership of a value token of some kind, rather than swag, equity, or charitably-intended crowdfunding.

The article, as it currently stands, has five sections for types of crowdfunding: Rewards-based, Equity, Debt-based,  Litigation, and Donation-based. I really am not clear on where this (new? newer? more recent?  nor sure) type off crowdsale, as a general type and not as a particular event for any one organization, fits in the article.

Ethereum is simply one real-world physical example of where such a sale of value tokens was done, and as I observe the crowdfunding literature, it was a reasonably notable example, since the organization raised some $18M or so. (just so I'm not misunderstood here: I am not suggesting that Ethereum be mentioned in this article)

I simply do not think that, as the article currently stands, this sort of a sale of a "value token"—a token that while it may tank and become worthless, might also grow in value rapidly and make the crowdfunders merely speculative investors in the results of a development project, but in a non-equity sort of way—is covered in this article on crowdfunding.

It does not seem to fit in the "type" of "equity", as it is not equity in any traditional or legal sense of that term. And I'm not seeing it as a standard "rewards-based", as the reward implies something of value, even if the value is small. But YMMV. I'm just trying to find where this type of crowdfunding fits. Really; that's all. N2e (talk) 11:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I see your question now! To have general discussion of this class, we would need sources that discuss it generally; those sources would define and shape the content.  I agree it would be interesting! Jytdog (talk) 22:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to see what I was trying to get at as a discussion for this Talk page. I'm a bit short on time right now, but I can think of a few I've read about in the various wiki article sources in the past few weeks; will try to get them added as a list here when I can.  N2e (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Here are a few of these oddballs that seem to fit into a somewhat hybrid type or form. To be clear, I'm not making a hard argument that they are all the same type, but they do seem to me to be somewhat different than the normal "reward-based" or "equity" types of crowdfunding efforts, and don't fit very well in any of the five existing type categories in the article.


 * Ethereum (2014, c. $18.5M, this is somewhere in the top ten crowdfunds to date, based on some Wikipedia article on the topic that I saw a few weeks ago. I am not arguing that the sources I'm about to copy/paste in here support that particular statement.  Just noting it for relevance to the discussion of the question of where this sort of stuff might fit. )   This crowdsale netted 31,529 bitcoins, worth approximately $18.5 million at the time, and in exchange 60,102,216 ether were later distributed to crowdsale participants. refs and text copied from the Ethereum article
 * Augur decentralized, distributed prediction market software.
 * Digix (a company? an organization?) with "digital gold tokens (DGX)"(from this forbes source, it sort of looks like there is some sort of value-token-as-reward-from-a-crowdsale for the Digix company itself, separate from the "DigixDAO" that is mentioned in the next bullet line, but I'm unclear on this.
 * "DigixDAO" (with "DGD" tokens as rewards for the crowdfunding, bought, apparently, with Ether)
 * "The DAO" (2016, going on right now, ends in late May; seems to have a very large value right now, more than Ethereum itself, but this is obviously a primary source. However, I think it makes the point by simply being yet another example of this sort of hybrid class.)  I'm sure there will be many reliable sources on this once the sale completes, simply because it is so large.  The "reward" once again is some sort of value token on a blockchain, but from what I can tell from that website, it is much closer to a sort of virtual equity position in this distributed organization than it is a ordinary cryptocurrency token, but on the other hand, it has some characteristics of a cryptocurrency too.  So pretty confusing to me.  But I do think it is a one more example of one of these kind of strange hybrids that have emerged recently.


 * There are no doubt many others with these somewhat oddball type of crowdfunding (or "crowdsales" or "token sales" or???) But these are the ones I had run into in recent weeks as I've been endeavoring to work on a number of different blockchain technology articles.  N2e (talk) 04:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Here is a new source that describes several of these value-token type crowdfunds in a single article. The common denominator seems to be that the "benefit" or "give back" of these particular types of crowdsales is a digital value token of some sort which is hanging off of sort sort of blockchain.  Here is the link:  http://venturebeat.com/2016/05/15/blockchain-startups-make-up-20-of-largest-crowdfunding-projects/


 * And another source, this from the Wall Street Journal. Apparently describes what is the largest of these sort of token sales to date (and the exchange of these tokens is still yet underway): Chiefless Company Rakes In More Than $100 Million

I still don't know where in the article this type of crowdfund is described. Does not seem to fit in any of the existing categories. Would appreciate input from other editors. N2e (talk) 15:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Given no additional input, but general support for the idea that these sort of crowdsales aren't quite the same as any of the existing categories, I've added a subsection called "Software value token". Do others have a better name for it? N2e (talk) 11:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Three months on, that term (Software value token) seems to have worked adequately.
 * Having said that, I have not found any source that refers to them as "software value token". The term "value token" is seen quite often.  Another name that might work, and is used in the most recent source added to the article (author: Williams, entitled "On Protocol Tokens and Securities Law"), is "protocol token."  I'm not pushing for any change right now, but it could be that one of the latter two might be a better title for the subsection than "Software value token", the term used for the past several months.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 04:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes it is working...and needs more work. Thanks for this! Jytdog (talk) 04:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Crowdfunding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.blender3d.com/campaign.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.blender3d.com/members.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121115152155/http://itsallhappeningenglishnews.blogspot.co.uk/2008_06_01_archive.html to http://itsallhappeningenglishnews.blogspot.co.uk/2008_06_01_archive.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090516235959/http://platform.idiomag.com:80/2009/05/crowdfunding-journalism/ to http://platform.idiomag.com/2009/05/crowdfunding-journalism/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

There is far too much concentration in this article on equity schemes
Not even one mention of gofundme.com!

Sorry, but the article requires wholesale changes. Boscaswell  talk  07:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

New spammish text
tried to reduce the spam-like tone of the real estate section. I agree with him but it seems wants to keep the puffery/advertising by introducing blog sources. Any comments? --Neil N  talk to me 04:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC) --
 * Of course, I stand by my additions, as anyone who has true in-depth understanding of the topic at-hand would. Unlike, the previous poster, I only add contributions to WP in topics, areas where I fully and completely have in-depth, unassailable knowledge.


 * Some people can only hop around from one WP article to another to another, tens of thousands of times, across significantly broad and diverse topics without any actual in-depth knowledge of any - and remove, delete, slash, cut, and detract valuable information while drunk & delirious on the power ascribed to them with an administrative WP editor's account. These people are not creators and add nothing. They only kill.


 * Others - the true creators on WP - add valuable, useful knowledge and insight by imparting actual encyclopedic information to the benefit of readers. These people may make fewer edits, but these edits are of a significantly higher quality and made ONLY in areas where they possess actual real knowledge & understanding.


 * Needless to say, WP needs more of the 2nd and much much less of the first.


 * My additions are 100 % true, correct, uncontroversial, without-conflict, unbiased and written only with the intent to further "encyclopedic" knowledge of the topic on WP. Enough said. --ForexAficionado (talk) 22:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have also reverted the insertion of this material. It has too many problems: overstated claims, promotional language, unsourced material and non-neutral sources. I left the recently applied improvement tag as it also applies to other less well written parts of this article that were already present. Drchriswilliams (talk) 22:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems that a consensus is developing to remove the material as it was written. Also, ForexAficionado has vandalized NeilN's comments above (twice), signing his name to words he did not write. Please stop that. - MrOllie (talk) 22:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Every promoter has a "true in-depth understanding" of what they're promoting. We're not interested in having that "understanding" placed in the article (backed by sources also having a financial interest in that promotion) but would rather sum up what independent third party sources say about a subject. --Neil N  talk to me 22:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * You are leveling inaccurate baseless accusations - very very dangerous both in life, and on WP. Your language above "spammy" "puffery" is so rude, demeaning and condescending. Am asking you to take a long look at your behaviour - You worsen WP with your comments & behaviour above.  All you do is fight with everyone, but you add NOTHING to WP.  ForexAficionado (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What inaccurate accusations have I been leveling? Other editors agree the text is promotional, anyone can see the some of the sources are not intellectually independent, and we have to guard against promotional editors every single day. --Neil N  talk to me</i> 23:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The changes by ForexAficionado, for example here, promote real estate crowd-funding and portals. The whole "Prior to the advent of the first online real-estate crowdfunding marketplaces...{things were terrible in the following ways)" and "Online real-estate crowdfunding portals finally allowed ..."  are an "isn't this great!!!" approach that we don't use in WP.  This is also all about how great online crowdfunding is, and says nothing (!) about the risks.  "Unbiased" this is not.  And the new sources are spammy. Jytdog (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * When you guys come on to the various thousands of WP pages that you "edit" and make wholesale deletions on, do you ever give any consideration to whether what you are removing is true, accurate, factual and representative or not? Don't you think that these are important considerations? Do you keep the 5th Pillar of WP in mind when you rashly & recklessly slash the words & earnest input of others - many of whom are often far far more knowledgeable about the topics that you are editing than you are? Do you ever think about whether you are removing useful knowledge  & info that might be important to readers seeking only to learn about a topic?
 * When you guys come on to the various thousands of WP pages that you "edit" and make wholesale deletions on, do you ever give any consideration to whether what you are removing is true, accurate, factual and representative or not? Don't you think that these are important considerations? Do you keep the 5th Pillar of WP in mind when you rashly & recklessly slash the words & earnest input of others - many of whom are often far far more knowledgeable about the topics that you are editing than you are? Do you ever think about whether you are removing useful knowledge  & info that might be important to readers seeking only to learn about a topic?


 * What is wrong with giving a little background colour and insight to these articles to in-fill and compliment the otherwise dry statistical data? At the end of the day, what harm is done by writing, for example: "Prior to the advent of in-home plumbing, people use to throw buckets of urine out of their windows." Is one to be accused of "promoting" plumbing for writing this?


 * Further to this, as long as one can not be accused of promoting any one particular person, product or company (which of course I've not done here), what can be wrong with highlighting the notable aspects of an entire industry?  I suppose that if this is a crime, then I am guilty... but, THIS IS NOT A CRIME !!!!!    THIS IS WHAT WP WAS CREATED FOR !!!!!


 * I really hope that you very very carefully consider whether you are advancing the encyclopedic knowledge of WP & furthering the knowledge of readers before you rush to remove entire swaths of other peoples' contributions, or whether you are just stroking your ego and exercising the administrative powers that your logins happen to have as SysOps or WP Adminstrators, drunk on the power that it affords you.


 * It's possible that you may believe that your deletions are well-intentioned (though sometimes I suspect they are not) the end result, I fear, is that you are in effect worsening WP... so much so that that other sources - QUORA, etc... may soon overtake WP simply in order to escape the tyranny of "administrators" like you.  And it will be a shame.ForexAficionado (talk) 14:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Short answer: Add well-sourced neutrally written content and you won't encounter much resistance. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Untrue b/c you guys all apply way more subjectivity in applying the guidelines (and remember - these are suggested guidelines only) than you think you do.ForexAficionado (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Untrue b/c you guys all apply way more subjectivity in applying the guidelines (and remember - these are suggested guidelines only) than you think you do.ForexAficionado (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Crowdfunding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151121144155/https://www.invest4justice.com/how-to-succeed-in-crowdfunding-your-legal-claim/ to https://www.invest4justice.com/how-to-succeed-in-crowdfunding-your-legal-claim/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://platform.idiomag.com/2009/05/crowdfunding-journalism/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Crowdfunding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140720120908/http://www.unquoted.co.uk/crowdfunding-part-three-the-p2p-lenders/ to https://www.unquoted.co.uk/crowdfunding-part-three-the-p2p-lenders/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151014005755/http://www.econible.com/business-behind-crowdfunding/ to http://www.econible.com/business-behind-crowdfunding
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120514044410/http://www.secondact.com/2012/04/is-microfinance-for-you/ to http://www.secondact.com/2012/04/is-microfinance-for-you/
 * Added tag to http://nordicity.com/reports/CMF-Crowdfunding-Study.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130614180355/http://www.opencitizenship.eu/ojs/index.php/opencitizenship/article/view/80/73 to http://www.opencitizenship.eu/ojs/index.php/opencitizenship/article/view/80/73

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:54, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Kickstarter
There have been a few comments about the irrelevancy of the Kickstarter section that I agree with and as an editor, I am planning on modifying, if not completely deleting the entire section. Before I do that though, are there any strong opinions of why we should keep that section in this page? Lsfujiu (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2018 (UTC)