Talk:List of highest-funded crowdfunding projects

Can we improve the table layout by making the Notes column much wider?
It's hard to skim down this list because of the huge breaks between entries, which is caused by long blocks of text in the very narrow Notes column. A couple of suggested solutions: * Could this column be made much wider? Ideally the contents of any column would take up no more than 2 lines. * Could some of the text and links in the Notes column be moved to the pages for the projects themselves? -- Danylstrype (talk) 11:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Danylstrype, good idea! N2e (talk) 11:54, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Classify crowdfunding types, weird comparing apples & oranges
It is controversial and rises debate to compare (1) the "typical" Kickstarter-like crowdfunding with (2) cryptocurrency crowdsales (e.g. MasterCoin) and (3) with investments in a hedge fund (TheDAO). In (1) people donate money to support a project receiving rewards/perks in return. In (2) the money is not donated but invested (i.e. with the main purpose of receiving more money in the future), receiving only the token bought (i.e. similar to a bond/share, which has no more uses beyond buying/selling). In (3) is even clearer the investment nature of it, as The DAO is a hedge fund by definition, and more similar to an IPO of a company searching for investors. As the current definition of crowdfunding includes investment-type or equity-based crowdfunding, others argue to keep (2) and (3) in the table. I'd suggest just to at least differentiate both types in the table (maybe even more types), with a new column, so they are not to be confused with each other. --Samer.hc (talk) 20:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Samer.hc -- An attempt to distinguish types would be welcome. I think it might be challenging but the key thing needed to do it will be building an agreed-upon view of what those types, and having a clear list of the characteristics of the various types.  In other words, if a consensus can be achieved on the types and what constitutes each, then it would be rather trivial to add the column to the table, or handle it any of a number of ways.


 * So if such a distinction is worthwhile, suggest someone start a discussion on this Talk page about those type with a goal to see if a consensus might be achieved. N2e (talk) 11:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I concur that this page has limited value with these two entirely different types of crowdfunding projects listed together. This list (that I have no connection to) is much closer to what people think of when they think of Highest Funded Crowdfunding Projects: https://crowdfundingblog.com/most-successful-crowdfunding-projects/ Plain Text (talk)

3rd party sources
It is clear that this article has some serious sourcing issues across many of its entries, so what is to be done about this? We can't just leave '3rd party source required' tags on each claimed funding total indefinitely; if a claim cannot be sourced, it must be removed and replaced with one that is reliable. The Star Citizen entry especially has been marked as such for four months with no sign of a source, despite having an editor updating it daily and showing very possessive behaviour towards it; the first 3rd-party source I could find on its funding was 65 million from The Guardian, and I will be editing the article in accordance with this. Phantom Hoover (talk) 13:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


 * First of all, IMO it's an stupidity to talk about third-party sources to begin with, and that tag should be removed in favor of "Kickstarter/IndieGoGo-confirmed", or something like that. Do you think that companies usually allows other agencies to investigate how much money they have spent on a game/project? Magazines and such almost always obtains the information FROM THE COMPANIES THEMSELVES. What "third-party" source is that if not an echo of the official statement? ¬¬U


 * The last one posting a magazine link towards an article about SC reaching 100 millions is an excellent example of that. I was observing the crowdfunding amount in that period, and I know for a FACT that those articles didn't pop up until the OFFICIAL SC counter reached 100m itself (and if you want proof of that, just compare any article's time and date with the data from here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tMAP0fg-AKScI3S3VjrDW3OaLO4zgBA1RSYoQOQoNSI ). So unless it's KS/IGOGO stuff, there's no stuff like "third party sources".


 * Also, the last "3rd-party" crowdfunding amount I found is 131m from a Polygon article. So kudos for effort, pal. KurtMaverick (talk) 14:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Let's keep this discussion civil. I don't think anyone here is trying to pick on Star Citizen in particular. Wikipedia is meant to be a tertiary source of information, summarizing information that has been gleaned from reliable secondary sources, which have themselves gleaned their information from primary sources such as companies' own websites. It is understandable that this can be problematic in certain Wikipedia articles such as this one, because any third-party sources that we might use for the amounts that ongoing crowdfunding campaigns have raised so far will either be or quickly become outdated. Luckily, Wikipedia policies are not set in stone, and we can establish a consensus for what procedure to follow in problematic articles such as this one.
 * Since the Star Citizen project is notable and nobody has provided a reliable source that would indicate that the Star Citizen website's counter is incorrect, I see no problem with using the Star Citizen website's counter as a temporary source for the amount that the Star Citizen crowdfunding campaign has raised so far. However, once the Star Citizen crowdfunding campaign ends, I think we should replace their website with the most reliable third-party source available in order to comply with Wikipedia's content policies. If we establish this as the new consensus for this article, then it would apply to all of the other entries as well. In other words, as long as a project's crowdfunding campaign is ongoing, the project is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article, and there are no reliable sources indicating that their website's counter is incorrect, then we can assume good faith and use the crowdfunding campaign's own counter as a source until the campaign is over and a reliable third-party source has been found. How does that sound? --Dodi 8238 (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Most other projects on the article don't have third-party sources either, which is its own deficiency, but they almost all have second-party sources in the form of Kickstarter or other funding platforms. These can at least be presumed not to have a vested interest in the funding totals of specific projects. Star Citizen is exceptional, for a few reasons: its crowdfunding income has almost entirely been collected by the developer itself; its crowdfunding model has arguably entered a grey area of monetised preordering; and its status as 'the largest crowdfunded game' has seen a great deal of use as a marketing tool. For these reasons I would say that CIG's self-reported funding total has some serious conflicts of interest as a source, and certainly it merits scrutiny that a single editor is editing it into every article he can manage and aggressively removing any edits he sees as 'biased against Star Citizen'. Phantom Hoover (talk) 19:45, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Projects that have a vested interest in their campaign's funding total are indeed something to look out for, but we can't assume that a project has lied about their campaign's funding total just because they use it as a marketing tool. I don't think we have any basis to dispute Star Citizen's self-reported funding total until someone provides a reliable source indicating that it is incorrect (see WP:AD).
 * If it can be reliably sourced that part of a campaign's funding total comes from monetized preordering, then that fact can be included in the entry's Notes section in order to avoid giving the impression that the funding total is entirely based on a model of crowdfunding that does not include monetized preordering.
 * If you suspect that another editor has a conflict of interest, please follow the advice that is outlined in the last section of WP:COI. Article talk pages such as this are not the appropriate forum to discuss other editors' behavior; the appropriate forums are the other editor's talk page and/or WP:COIN. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 17:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

You mention "grey area of monetised preordering" and accuse me of fanboyism only because I take care of updating the crowdfunding amount of several SC-related articles. And you call ME biased. How fantasticly ironic :P KurtMaverick (talk) 00:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

There should be no references to Original Research. According to WP:RS, Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Original Research is not allowed. In my opinion, any reference to a project home page is invalid. Then there is the question about references to Kickstarter pages, etc. Should they be considered third-party source? I don't think so. Kickstarter is not a third party in this case, they are one of the actors. LarsPensjo (talk) 18:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * As far as confirming the exact amount raised, Kickstarter and Indiegogo are independent of the subject. The subject cannot change the amount raised at a whim on these pages. The total is what users have actually contributed. Compare this to referencing Star Citizen's official website, which they fully control. They can put any number they want there, however they want. There's no way to verify it. Keep in mind that most of this discussion section dealt with Star Citizen, and the promotional pushing of a now-blocked editor. -- ferret (talk) 18:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Blockchain entries
This list is becoming increasingly populated by what most amounts to self-sourced Ethereum based block chain projects, which don't have clear and obvious monetary values. I don't have a solution, but starting a discussion in case anyone has ideas. For example, some of the recent entries are only sourced to their own sites, where they claim a certain amount raised that is not in any known currency we can convert. -- ferret (talk) 12:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your criticism. Just to clarify, you're saying there is no credible corroboration of the amounts raised? With respect to this: "which don't have clear and obvious monetary values", are you claiming the criteria for inclusion in this list that the project being funded have monetary value? If so, I don't see that being part of any definition of crowdfunding I've come across, or that has been used as a criteria for inclusion in this list to date. Moreover, a determination of what monetary value a project has that does not depend on what the market is willing to pay seems totally subjective and unconventional. If anything the blockchain projects have more credible monetary value than most of the other projects, given the tokens sold in the crowdsales are traded and have a market derived price. The same cannot be said for a preorder of a video game that is as of yet nonexistent. With respect to this: "where they claim a certain amount raised that is not in any known currency we can convert." Which currency are you referring to that you say cannot be converted? Amincd (talk) 00:23, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Another day, another Ethereum project added. -- ferret (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Coming from Ethereum is not a criteria for being deleted. Please use the usual recommendations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LarsPensjo (talk • contribs) 18:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't do the original removal, but since you've put it all back, please be mindful of WP:BURDEN. The burden is on you to provide sourcing for the content you want, otherwise it can be removed again. -- ferret (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but I'll add the "citation needed" mark and give the original authors a chance to add more information.LarsPensjo (talk) 19:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I recommend removal of Ethereum blockchain entries. Reputable sources call these projects Ponzi schemes (per the Atlantic Monthly) (per the Financial Times). If listed they should be listed with a health warning. Flibber2388 (talk) 00:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That is false. Neither of your links call all token sales ponzi schemes. In fact, the first link you provided clearly calls one of the projects on this list (Gnosis) legitimate, and an example of a token sale that is not a scam, and none of the examples of scam token sales it lists are on this list. Amincd (talk) 01:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The entire point of the Financial Times piece is to show that ICO promoters are combining various MLM and gamification tactics to create Ponzi games: "For instance, they could mix multi-level marketing, token sales, and games, to realize complex smart contracts, which would be very hard to correctly classify as Ponzi schemes or legit investments." The Atlantic Monthly piece does not affirm that Gnosis isn't a scam, it merely suggests Gnosis "could be bait for an aggressive regulator" i.e. it's probably illegal. Investment schemes of questionable legality have no place on this webpage with legitimate crowdfunds. Flibber2388 (talk) 04:29, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The FT article doesn't call all token sales ponzi schemes. Your earlier claim is a mischaracterization. The Atlantic Monthly article doesn't claim that either, and praises Gnosis on several counts, which would be extremely inconsistent with a belief that it's a scam or ponzi scheme. In any case, a ponzi scheme is a well defined concept and token sales don't meet the definition. There are also numerous other news articles that discuss token sales and do not characterize them categorically as 'ponzi schemes'. Your claim is simply misleading and poorly supported. Amincd (talk) 09:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The FT article doesn't say all, it says most: "And herein lies the issue with ICOs. Currently, they exist in the crevices of the law, exploiting an ambiguous state to the benefit of fraudsters. That may not always be the case, because the law will eventually adapt to limit the ambiguity. But while the academics say blockchains “might really be the next ‘disruptive’ technology”, and consider the fraud to be only a side effect, we are less convinced." Objective third parties say the things are scams. So should this encyclopaedia. Flibber2388 (talk) 14:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The excerpt you're quoting from the FT opinion piece doesn't say all token sales are scams. It gives the opinion that fraudsters have taken advantage of the token sale model. Moreover, the same FT writer has been harshly criticizing Bitcoin since 2013, so you're being highly selective in your choice of sources. Amincd (talk) 15:25, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This isn't about my opinion, it's about WP:RS and WP:NPOV. The Financial Times and the Atlantic Monthly are verifiable sources that assert these things are investment products/ponzi schemes. The sources cited to support Ethereum projects' inclusion in this article are self-referential or barely better than press releases. Wikipedia operates on the basis of reliable, objective third-party sources it can verify - WP:V. There is also the issue of source quality - listing these ICOs right now may be WP:TOOSOON as the sources that support exclusion of blockchain projects generally (FT, Atlantic Monthly) are far stronger than those that are frequently used to support inclusion of a particular project (e.g. CoinDesk). Flibber2388 (talk) 21:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The claim that token sales are all ponzi schemes is very much just your opinion. Even the two articles you cite, and falsely mischaracterize as representative of media opinion in general, do not say that all token sales are ponzi schemes. Your statements are simply wrong, and totally lacking in supporting evidence. I reiterate, The Financial Times and the Atlantic Monthly articles do not assert token sales are all ponzi schemes. And two articles from The Financial Times and the Atlantic Monthly asserting something, respectively, is not the same thing as "The Financial Times and the Atlantic Monthly" asserting something. This may be semantic nitpicking to you, but I think it's an important distinction, and that it's important to be accurate and not resort to hyperbole. Amincd (talk) 10:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I introduce the blog post quoted by the FT article, an open letter on Hacker Noon that states on its face that "these projects are increasingly resembling classical ponzis, with the losses borne by ordinary blue-collar Americans," and "ICO fundraisers leverage the confusion around ‘blockchain technology’ to swindle uninformed consumers with false promises, dubious claims, and dishonest terms related to their ‘high yield’ investment opportunities." I note also the Atlantic Monthly was titled "The Rise of Cryptocurrency Ponzi Schemes" and the FT article was titled "It's Not Just a Ponzi, It's a Smart Ponzi." So I'm not being hyperbolic: it is a fact that third parties are calling the ICOs Ponzis. One of us is misrepresenting the source material here, and it isn't me. Flibber2388 (talk) 19:46, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The blog post in question is not a credible source. It's a Bitcoin personality, with no journalistic credentials or credibility, writing a post on his personal blog. Again: there is no basis, in the form of a preponderance of evidence, for your claims about blockchain crowdfunding. Even the two articles you found in the mainstream media that mention the word "ponzi" and "blockchain" do not categorize all blockchain crowdfunding projects as ponzi schemes. One of them even holds up Gnosis as an example of a legitimate blockchain project, and Gnosis is on this list! If anything your own source argues against the position that you're making I ask that you please stop misrepresenting the sources you're providing in an effort to have blockchain crowdfunding projects removed from a list that by every definition, they are entirely qualified for.Amincd (talk) 10:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Some ICOs are scams, some are not. But it is not the case that all of them are scams. That is the purpose of using a reliable source for citations. If you are not happy with an entry, add a "citation needed" tag, and remove it after a while if none is provided. LarsPensjo (talk) 05:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

No blockchains should be re-added without reliable secondary sourcing that proves their claims of an amount raised in a known currency we can convert. WP:V must be met, and a bunch of primary sourced only promotion entries should be kept out. -- ferret (talk) 13:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If there is a reliable second source that also states the amount in a regular currency, then it should be accepted. LarsPensjo (talk) 17:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

" raised in a known currency we can convert. ". Why do you keep saying this? They raise Ethereum, which can be converted and the amounts raised are public ledger. Anyone can easily go to the ICO contract address and verify themselves that they have indeed raised that amount. That's a nonsense reason for removal. I agree with adding a warning to them though. Maybe not as a ponzi scheme but as a purely speculative investment. 67.83.104.190 (talk) 16:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If we cannot convert the amount raised into a currency we can use for comparison, then we can not accurately place them on this list. That's a pretty simple statement. Either way, the greater bulk of these had no source at all, or only their own website. They are non-notable projects with no secondary coverage in reliable sourcing. Anything added back needs to have solid sourcing, not just a link to the project's own page. I'd even go so far as to say there should be a requirement that the project itself be notable first, and have its own article. -- ferret (talk) 17:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree Flibber2388 (talk) 20:11, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Like has been explained to you several times, we CAN convert the amount raised to a currency we can use for comparison. Ether's price is widely available, from reputable sources like Coinbase. It can be readily converted at dozens of exchanges around the world with a aggregate trading volume of nearly $2 billion a day. This is an established market and the currency is highly liquid and convertible. The $USD equivalent of the ether is frequently quoted in mainstream news and is not a subject of controversy. Amincd (talk) 00:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

All ICOs should probably go into a new page of their own, with cross-linking between the two. Ethereum ICOs can then become a special category in this article. Btcgeek (talk) 21:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree Flibber2388 (talk) 20:11, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Blockchain based crowdfunding meets the definition of crowdfunding and thus is appropriate to include in this page. Just because it uses nontraditional payment systems doesn't put it outside the definition of crowdfunding, which is agnostic to the technical mechanism of value transference. There can be an additional page that only displays blockchain crowdfunds, but that would be a subset of this list, not outside of it. Amincd (talk) 00:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I can get behind that. It removes a lot of difficult to source or compare entries from this list. What would be the list name though? List of highest funded initial coin offerings? This avoids it being tied to Ethereum only. -- ferret (talk) 23:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree. Initial coin offering has a page already. A far better home for this list. Flibber2388 (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

It's very difficult to address multiple out-of-order mid-discussion replies. Since some people seem to be misunderstanding: Wikipedia requires reliable sourcing. I don't know that Coindesk has been accepted as such, but its a start. This list sorts and is listed by USD, so it's very important to have a sourcable USD values. For block chains, this becomes difficult, because the ICO are based in ETH. What was the conversion rate for ETH to USD on the date of the ICO? How much fluctuation over the course of the ICO? Is there a source to back it? Many of the entries added have stated only a quantity of ETH being raised, which makes their position in the list incorrect at best, as well as only being primarily sourced. There's a claim above that the USD to ETH conversion is frequently quoted in mainstream news, and yet most entries are missing them. Entries without sourcing need to be removed, this is a core policy of Wikipedia. It's also clear some canvassing is going on, which usually happens from Reddit whenever someone applies policy and cleans up unsourced or improperly sourced entries in lists. To clarify again: If the sourcing is available, that's great. This list has seen a flood of projects however with no secondary reliable sourcing, or no sourcing at all, and the WP:BURDEN to add such sourcing falls on those who want the entries added. -- ferret (talk) 01:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * These are excellent questions and I agree need to be discussed and answered. I would just urge you to keep an open mind until others have had a chance to respond. Lack of citations does not imply credible sources don't exist. With respect to this: "Many of the entries added have stated only a quantity of ETH being raised, which makes their position in the list incorrect at best, as well as only being primarily sourced." I agree about the sourcing, but the currency that the token sale took place in has no bearing on whether it should be included in the list. USD is only used as a unit of account to allow for ready comparison between projects. The actual crowdfunding doesn't have to have been done using USD. "Entries without sourcing need to be removed, this is a core policy of Wikipedia." I've been involved in numerous Wikipedia discussions for years, and I've never seen this expressed as a core policy of Wikipedia. Please correct me if I'm wrong with a link to a written directive. From what I've gathered, in the case where the existence of sources is highly plausible, the policy is to ask for other editors to contribute sources, and only if it's clear such sources don't exist, then remove them. Amincd (talk) 01:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Verifiability is the policy I'm referring to, which is a core content policy. WP:BURDEN, which I've linked several times, is a part of the verifiability policy. Many of these entries have been unsourced, badly sourced, and tagged as such for a long time. Many have been reverted the moment they were added without a source (By numerous different patrolling editors). While an IP initially removed all the block chains, LarsPensjo has undone that, and tagged several as needing citations. Several more still need tagging. There's no time limit on this, they can be removed immediately within policy, but I am not removing them as a courtesy for now. I will probably remove them in a couple weeks time, maybe a month, if the sourcing isn't fixed. As for whether or not USD is directly used as the currency for a crowdfunding project, I've never contested that. I am only stating that it must be verifiable what the final total in USD (or converted into USD) was, as that is the basis for determining a position and inclusion in the list. If that cannot be provided, it should be easy enough to create a list devoted to "Highest etherium based crowdfunding" or similar as an alternative place to track these. -- ferret (talk) 02:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added sources for #4 Status and #6 TenX, for the USD equivalent amount raised. I'll try to add some more over the next couple of days. Amincd (talk) 10:07, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It is impossible to verify those figures as the cryptocurrency FX rates fluctuate wildly (+-20%) on a daily basis. These are not really crowd funds insofar as they are conversions of one cryptocurrency into another - in exchange for depositing the bitcoins or ethers to the project, the project returns cryptocurrency tokens of its own which are then listed on exchanges and float in value. Basically it's printing money. For this reason I suggest removal of these schemes as they differ from crowd funds, which do not print money but which rather produce products which are given to or sold to the original backers. Flibber2388 (talk) 04:38, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * First of all, any currency can fluctuate wildly in a single day. The average daily volatility of bitcoin is nowhere near 20%. It looks to be more like 3-6%, with spikes to 9%: https://www.bitmex.com/app/index/.BVOL24H. Ether has trading volumes close to bitcoin's so its price volatility is probably slightly above it, and still well below 20% per day. Second, the spot price of cryptocurrency is always known, so the USD equivalent of the contributions at the end of the crowdsale can always be calculated. Volatility in the price of the currency used in the crowdfund contributions is a poor reason to not include the project in a list of crowdfunded projects. Your "print money" argument for removal of these projects is a non sequitur. The tokens issued in exchange for a crowdfund contribution are no different than a API key or preorder voucher one receives when they participate in a crowdfunded preorder of a product. The fact that these tokens can be transferred and have market value has no bearing on the definition of the event wherein the funds were raised as a crowdfund. Amincd (talk) 09:46, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * See "Financial Times/Atlantic Monthly" discussion above. These blockchain crowd funds are being described by disinterested, reliable third party sources as Ponzi schemes, not as API keys or pre-order vouchers. Flibber2388 (talk) 14:51, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You're grossly misrepresenting what those articles say. I explained that in the discussion. It's also off-topic, as this discussion is about whether the USD values for the crowndfunds are verifiable, not whether there's support (there isn't) for your belief that token sales are all scams. Amincd (talk) 15:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * For the record, I'm not really interested in the question of whether or not blockchains are ponzi schemes or anything like that. I'm only interested in meeting WP:V, and having verifiable USD values that can be utilized for the list entries. That applies for any entry in the list, not just blockchains. Blockchain entries in particular have simply been problematic as a group as far as sourcing goes. -- ferret (talk) 17:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that projects need verifiable sources for the US dollar value of the funds raised. Some of the blockchain crowdfunding projects already have credible sources, but we need to work to get more of them sourced, and remove the ones that prove impossible to source. Amincd (talk) 10:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Remove blockchain entries and move to Initial coin offering instead
Agree. Reputable sources call these projects Ponzi schemes (per the Atlantic Monthly) (per the Financial Times). These are investment schemes and clearly not crowdfunding in the traditional sense (where a product is pre-sold or users make charitable contributions). Even though their legitimacy is highly questionable, whether they are legitimate or not does not really matter for the purposes of the present discussion; being investment programs, legitimate or not, they should be on their own page/within their own category and not on this one. Flibber2388 (talk) 16:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Neither source calls all token sales ponzi schemes. And you're right that these are nontraditional crowdfunding projects (like you mention, most crowdfunding has historically been used for pre-ordering hypothetical products), but they're crowdfunding nonetheless, by definition. The term crowdfunding applies to investment schemes as well. For example, the United States JOBS Act calls investment schemes with many participants 'crowdfunding', and these are strictly equity investments. As another example of the conventional usage of 'crowdfunding': several organizations, such as the The National Crowdfunding Association of Canada, have the term 'crowdfunding' in their organization's name, and deal exclusively with equity crowdfunding. Finally, there is already a non-blockchain related equity crowdfunding project on the list: Gut Weißenhaus, and another 'nontraditional' crowdfunding project that is not equity funding: Mayday PAC Crowdfunding refers to how the funds are raised, not what the funds are used for. Amincd (talk) 10:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Both sources refer to token sales generally as ponzi schemes. As does the blog post which the FT piece refers to extensively.
 * The definition of "crowdfunding" should be construed narrowly so as to exclude investment scams. Per your comment the equity crowdfunding should be removed and Mayday PAC should stay. Prior to the inclusion of the Ethereum projects on this page, investment programs and ponzi schemes were not included in this list. This is because investment programs and ponzi schemes are fundamentally different from donation-crowdfunded projects, where money is freely given with no expectation of profit in return. People are induced to give money to ICOs and other investment scams because of the promise that they will be made rich. As a result, and as evidenced by reporting in Reuters, regulators are seriously considering whether ICO schemes are illegal. There are also questions within the community as to whether these schemes are legitimate or not.
 * 1. There is no basis for any of your claims: blockchain crowdfunding is not a scam. The sources you provided in purported support of this claim that they're scams don't even say that, and those are only two sources among hundreds that discuss blockchain crowdfunding. 2. As I demonstrated, the definition of crowdfunding is not limited to pre-orders of products. It refers to how the funds are raised, and not for what purpose. This can be seen in numerous instances of usage in legislation and in media reports. Amincd (talk) 09:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This places all ICOs in a very different category from garden-variety donation crowdfunded projects, which makes it misleading to include them here. ICOs have their own page, over at Initial coin offering. Given that Ferret and BTCGeek both recommend listing ICOs on a page of their own (general blockchain discussion above), it appears we have reached consensus on that question. See List of highest funded initial coin offerings. Flibber2388 (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This isn't a list for donation crowdfunded projects. This is a list of crowdfunding projects. There can be a list for donation crowdfunded projects, but that would be a subset of this one. There is absolutely no consensus on your recommendation. It's actively being discussed. I would appreciate you not engaging in blatant misrepresentation of the consensus. Amincd (talk) 09:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

This is a list of crowd funding projects, which is not restricted to certain categories. If there is a need for a list limited to donation crowdfunded, please go ahead and create such a page. Do not change the purpose of this page. LarsPensjo (talk) 05:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Disagree. These are not crowd fundings, these are (likely illegal) investment scams and they do not belong on this page. Saying that all ICOs belong on the page because some ICOs are legitimate is like saying that "all pyramid schemes should be listed on this page because some pyramid schemes are legitimate." This approach ignores the fact that the Initial coin offering is a completely different product which doesn't work like the donation-crowdfunded projects which traditionally populated this list. Because of both the newness and the legal uncertainty surrounding ICO projects, consensus to move blockchain projects to List of highest funded initial coin offerings was reached. You should not have reverted my changes implementing that consensus with multiple reverts per WP:EW. Flibber2388 (talk) 16:38, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no support for your claim that these are "likely illegal investment scams. You're simply making things up and misrepresenting what your own sources are saying. Amincd (talk) 09:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC on blockchain project inclusion
Should blockchain Initial coin offering products be included on this "crowdfunding" list? Flibber2388 (talk) 20:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I missed that Flibber2388 had added this RfC section, and had posted the following as a new section for a split discussion, so am merging it in: This is a new fresh section to discuss a proposed splitting of Ethereum based block chains to a different list. The basic rationale is that it is very difficult to source a valid USD conversion of the amount of Ethereum raised in the ICOs. We can, in most cases, source the amount of Ethereum raised, but getting a valid and reliably sourced conversion to USD, for which this list is based in, is difficult. The blockchains would be split to List of highest funded Ethereum initial coin offerings, or simply List of Ethereum initial coin offerings, as appropriate. A link to the new list would be inserted into the lead of this list. The goal is not to remove blockchains from Wikipedia lists, but to address the inability to meet WP:V for most blockchain entries in a USD valuation. Note: Block chains shouldn't be removed while this discussion is running. Those who have been removing them based on a claim that consensus to split exists need to pause. Removing the blockchains without starting the new list shouldn't have been done. -- ferret (talk) 20:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There are numerous mainstream media reports on the USD equivalent values raised. If a project cannot have its USD value raised verified, then it should be considered for removal. But making a blanket generalization about blockchain projects, many of which have verified USD values for their funds raised, doesn't have any justification. If anything, there can be new pages that are subsets of this list, for different kinds of crowdfunded projects, but I don't see rationale for not including a particular kind of crowdfunded project - those on the blockchain - in the general list. Amincd (talk) 09:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to well sourced entries for USD valuation being kept here. Beyond that, I think the three participants here have said what they can, and we need some outside third party views. -- ferret (talk) 11:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Exclude - as the price of Ether/Bitcoin is so volatile (dropped by 50%+ in the last 48 hours) it's impossible to accurately measure the funds actually raised and therefore rank-order the projects correctly. Flibber2388 (talk) 13:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment In addition to Ferret's WP:V point above on raise amounts, it strikes me that an Initial coin offering ("ICO") is a sale of an investment product and not a crowdfund in any traditional sense. Including ICOs on this page is likely to confuse readers. It is as inappropriate to combine ICOs & Crowdfunding as it would be to combine pyramid schemes and crowdfunding, despite broad similarities in the methods employed and consumers targeted by each method. There is also the question of whether ICO schemes are even legal, which would go some way to explaining why good third party sources Ferret seeks are difficult to find. Flibber2388 (talk) 20:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Your comment about these being pyramid schemes is completely baseless. These are crowdfunded projects. If there is going to be a list for only charity crowdfunding, it should be a separate page. The title of this page does not discriminate between which kind of crowdfunded project the list constitutes, and as such, it should include all of them. Amincd (talk) 09:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Include - It looks problematic, but unless the list is redefined to 'highest kickstarter efforts' or something, the big tent of Crowdfunding to me looks like it includes ICOs and possibly a large number of other undesired items like PACs. Just saying that if it's a list of highest funded crowdsourcings with no other filter, then it seems all fair game.  The WP:V is going to still have to find some outside valuation source, but other than that I don't see a reason this would be WP:OFFTOPIC.   Pyramid schemes falls to the same must show WP:V that it is considered one and even then ... Star Citizen was also being tossed about as a fraud at one point  Markbassett (talk) 00:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Include - There is no reason to restrict the filter. If other lists are needed with other filters, they should go to a new page. It is wrong to change the purpose of this page. Using the blockchain to get money is just one way. There are other ways, e.g. using Kickstarter. This page includes them all. LarsPensjo (talk) 17:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

consensus
what was the result of the three previous discussions on this talk page? i do not see anybody summarizing them to indicate a definitive course of action to do next to resolve the issues raised here.. has any Admin taken a look? —-— .: nimbosa :. (talk • contribs) 09:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you going to decide a closing statement on this? I don't really see a clear consensus that can be read without a closure making a statement. -- ferret (talk) 12:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 14:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Copyright violations
I've blanked this page because of repeated copyright violations from various sources, going back at least to in 2013. It can be rewritten at this page. All the factual table content can be copied straight across (there's no copyright in non-creative content such as this), but none of the descriptions in the Notes column should be copied into the new version until and unless they have been thoroughly checked. A much simpler solution, if there's consensus for it here, would be to just remove that column altogether. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The blockchain project shills are to blame for this, just FYI everyone. This is why we can't have nice things. Flibber2388 (talk) 13:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * At least one of the entries Justlettersandnumbers has pointed out is a kickstarter. It's not just blockchains. -- ferret (talk) 13:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Please give a detailed example how one of the notes violates a copyright. E.g. You linked to http://iex.ec/. How is the note for this entry violating any copyright? LarsPensjo (talk) 04:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , you can use Earwig's useful tool to find these. The ones I've identified are this, this (but more probably something like this) and this. Identical text is highlighted in red. The tool can't read this source, which may be where the content added with came from. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 06:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * In the example above the red highlighted text is a phrase of 30 words. And not any kind of words - it's not an art of a journalist but simply a text that, most likely, the journalists were copying from the presentation of the products. I'm sorry but I find it exaggerated to make such an issue from this. —  Ark25  (talk) 07:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , content you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words, not copied verbatim from copyright sources. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Great. IMO, this is a very good example of extreme interpretation of the copyright rules - not copying even a phrase that was made for marketing and which their creators are actually happy to see copied. Anyways, I complied with this requirement and I removed the descriptions of the elements in the list that I've added some time ago. —  Ark25  (talk) 19:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Most of the notes were actually copied from another list - List of video game crowdfunding projects but I removed them just to make completely sure there is no copyright violation. My edit was recently reverted, anyways, and that's probably a good idea. —  Ark25  (talk) 22:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

break
Now that has removed some of the violation, is it safe to remove the tag? I notice that the article is now clean of copyvios from the 3rd link and very little remains from the other 2. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 06:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

what exactly remains as an issue here jd22292? Any CopyVio Left? i hope nobody is doing this out of spite for the wretched ICO's, we can be objective here.. the ostensible reason was CopyVio so just shoot the instances of copyright violation, we don't need to shoot the ico's, UNLESS Wikipedia has a policy AGAINST ico's, do we? —-— .: nimbosa :. (talk • contribs) 09:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The copyvio tag has no relation to the ICO discussions. -- ferret (talk) 12:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I had an IP go to my Talk page recently in relation to this issue. Can someone please go to their Talk page and explain the situation to them? Someone who's had more experience with this article than myself is preferred. The IP is 84.48.191.237. Thanks. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:08, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of highest funded crowdfunding projects. 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/20151117030200/http://www.nltimes.nl/2015/10/28/vegetarian-butcher-hits-e2-5-million-crowdfunding-target-for-new-factory/ to http://www.nltimes.nl/2015/10/28/vegetarian-butcher-hits-e2-5-million-crowdfunding-target-for-new-factory/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150619051949/http://blog.tilt.com/top-10-crowdhoster-campaigns/ to http://blog.tilt.com/top-10-crowdhoster-campaigns/
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20140118065513/https://fundanything.com/adamcarolla?locale=en to https://fundanything.com/adamcarolla?locale=en

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) 17:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

The rank number
Does anyone have an easy way to update that list of numbers? There are clearly several entrys that have no sources avalible and need to be removed. Also some have numbers on there that the sources say are much lower. Of course it is missing lots that have real sources. Should I just compile a list and make a lot of changes at once? Or am I missing easy formating and edditing option. Cause as it stands pretty much anyone can go in and add a company with no sources and pretty much no one will take it out cause it takes 20 minutes just to update the numbering. Archersbobsburgers (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Gloomhaven
Where is Gloomhaven? The game was originally sold via a 2015 Kickstarter campaign which raised $386,104 from 4,904 backers.[7] and after strong early reviews, a second Kickstarter campaign was launched on April 4th and delivered in November which raised about $4 million from over 40,000 backers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.23.119.157 (talk) 08:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Color coding explanation?
Unless I'm just being particularly unobservant, there's no key to the color coding in the "funds raised" column of the chart. It would appear that red is for unmet goals and green for met/surpassed goals, but that doesn't seem to be consistently applied nor does it explain uncolored boxes. Could someone who has more familiarity with this article add a key or note to the bottom of the table, or if it exists perhaps make it more prominent? Thanks! 68.168.176.65 (talk) 23:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I second your proposal. The color in the chart makes no sense to me. 71.205.7.98 (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ The RedBurn (ϕ) 11:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Wyrmwood Gaming Modular Tables
Wyrmwood Gaming has hit 4.82 million on their new kickstarter for a new gaming table today in less than 24 hours with 58 days remaining in the campaign. It't to soon to know the final number so im not adding it to the table just yet, though others feel free if i never get back to this ––Ladyamphy (talk) 13:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

No mention of the Bacata skyscraper?
Maybe there is a reason why, but I don't see any mention of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BD_Bacat%C3%A1#Crowdfunding The source cited in that page lists the project at $170,000,000 USD based on the 2013 exchange rate. Seems like it would be pretty high up on the page? This wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prodigy_Network says that it raised $200,000,000. 98.122.169.179 (talk) 22:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Rcat shell
my family 🔥🚉 for contact with you get a chance please let me know what you think 🤔 for payment on eat it up to be able it tryes to open the office at my house at office at my phone app every time it is only option atm 🏧 for payment on Paypal to be able to do it⛽ 78.1.188.135 (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Tuttle Twins
Hi all,

There's an entry in this list called "Tuttle Twins" - it's an animated series for kids, it really was crowdfunded, but the source linked goes directly to their website, which no longer provides the $3,700,000 anywhere that I could find. Further, if that number is accurate, it should appear 84th on the list rather than 101st. Not sure how to tag this, as I believe the user likely cited the number when it was listed on the website and it was since removed - I don't believe that the source was always wrong.

WellRehearsedWhale (talk) 06:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

ZrCoin
ZrCoin has a variety of issues here - the source given does not claim they reached their ICO goal of $3.5m, and no source is given for the $4.2m number in the article. They have claimed, to different outlets at different times, $3.7m, $7m, and eventually $16m was raised off of the ICO. Their public-facing materials simply state that "ICO successfully completed!" but no numbers are given on their website, and because it appears the project was abandoned in 2019, it's possible final or accurate numbers may never become available.

WellRehearsedWhale (talk) 06:15, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Raised vs. brought in
I would expect a sum raised to represent money received before first release of something. If people buy the finished product I wouldn't say the money was crowdfunded.

Some of the figures are in the 500 million USD range. Was this money crowdfunded from people hoping to get the product one day, or much of it paid once the product was available? - Tournesol (talk) 09:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Missing The Planetary Society's LightSail Kickstarter campaign?
Shouldn't this list include LightSail? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LightSail 207.141.116.122 (talk) 17:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorting is Incorrect
When listing the end dates by descending order, the dates are listed in reverse alphabetical by their MONTH, not reverse chronologically. This does not happen for the ascending sort. 184.182.113.209 (talk) 06:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Many Entries are Not Legitimate Crowdfunding Efforts
I can see that this has been discussed quite a bit in the past. However, I would suggest that this page is pretty useless as is. All the blockchain projects listed here are not really legitimate crowdfunding projects. I believe those should be removed from this page, potentially moved to another page if need be, and this page restricted to legitimate crowdfunding projects. Paul Thompson (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)