4 ms·

That doesn't work. Inventors on Kickstarter need that initial money to create their first product. If we say "no money 'til we have the product," then the inv

That doesn't work. Inventors on Kickstarter need that initial money to create their first product. If we say "no money 'til we have the product," then the inventors will have to go somewhere else to get that seed funding. And then we're back to square one.

nooneelse 14y ago
A two-stage model would seem workable. Stage one would be like Kickstarter as-is: if(speculative funding threshold met), then(inventor/creator gets a payment so they can start work). Stage two would be like a bounty for meeting some further goal(s) (still actively working on it three months later, actually wrote/released the program/art, X number of products shipped in six months, etc). Right now, selling your product to people (who don't get one for being a backer) functions as stage two. But I don't see why formalizing that process would be detrimental (it would also start providing some metrics on "success" beyond "funding success"). Though the issue of who gets to decide if the goal(s) is(are) met is an obvious point of probable contention which needs resolving (backer votes?, panel of experts at the payment escrow service?). As a potential backer of something, I might like to know that there is going to be a continuing clear incentive on the table to keep the creator working through inevitable obstacles. That might increase the number of times I open my wallet.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
bluedanieru 14y ago
This would be for things like music and film only, with perhaps some of the money raised handed over immediately, and the rest held until the project is complete. And, since the musician/filmmaker/whatever has already been paid, a further stipulation on receiving the rest of the money could be that it's released under creative commons license, or something like that. Seems workable to me. (Either way I'm confused about the downvotes.)

nooneelse 14y ago

A two-stage model would seem workable. Stage one would be like Kickstarter as-is: if(speculative funding threshold met), then(inventor/creator gets a payment so they can start work). Stage two would be like a bounty for meeting some further goal(s) (still actively working on it three months later, actually wrote/released the program/art, X number of products shipped in six months, etc). Right now, selling your product to people (who don't get one for being a backer) functions as stage two. But I don't see why formalizing that process would be detrimental (it would also start providing some metrics on "success" beyond "funding success"). Though the issue of who gets to decide if the goal(s) is(are) met is an obvious point of probable contention which needs resolving (backer votes?, panel of experts at the payment escrow service?). As a potential backer of something, I might like to know that there is going to be a continuing clear incentive on the table to keep the creator working through inevitable obstacles. That might increase the number of times I open my wallet.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

bluedanieru 14y ago

This would be for things like music and film only, with perhaps some of the money raised handed over immediately, and the rest held until the project is complete. And, since the musician/filmmaker/whatever has already been paid, a further stipulation on receiving the rest of the money could be that it's released under creative commons license, or something like that. Seems workable to me. (Either way I'm confused about the downvotes.)