3 ms·

1) Your funding goal is ridiculous. $69K, really? Four engineers could not pitch in to get that much? 2) Your highest investment pledge ($10k or more) is an in

by rorrr 14y ago

1) Your funding goal is ridiculous. $69K, really? Four engineers could not pitch in to get that much? 2) Your highest investment pledge ($10k or more) is an insult to the investor. They will essentially pay for 1/7th of your company, while getting no % of your company in return. 3) Your presentation is OK, but you really need to put microphones closer to the speaker.

josephagoss 14y ago
Your right about the $69K thing, i'm surprised 4 engineers couldn't get together this money. Odd. If they were asking a for a million then the whole thing makes a lot more sense.
damncabbage 14y ago
$69K, really? Four engineers could not pitch in to get that much? How do you know this is the entire lot? The engineers seem to have invested a fair chunk of cash or resources into this already. I think this may be more PR (a good thing!) than a full funding drive.
shabble 14y ago
> Your highest investment pledge ($10k or more) is an insult to the investor. They will essentially pay for 1/7th of your company, while getting no % of your company in return. There's absolutely no way that this 70k is the value of the company. Their existing plant is probably worth 5-10x that even at bankruptcy auction prices. My understanding (although I haven't looked in too much depth) is that they're an established company doing work in one area (fabrication for plasma/fusion research) who have come up with a novel use for some of their tech/skills, but can't really justify the cost/opportunity cost of this particular app. So they're asking for essentially donations to develop the thing, in exchange for very low-cost returns plus a final project demo. It's really the patronage model applied to research. Also, for 10k you do get naming rights to the tech, and some advertising opportunity during the final tech demo, which is probably valuable to some companies, especially given the audience targeting this thing is likely to attract. Pitching for equity investment in the company requires a much more substantial business plan ("Make cool thing, produce internet videos & some research data" isn't really going to work), and it may just be that they don't see the value right now in doing the work necessary to attract those sorts of investors. I imagine if this test is successful and there is any hint of actual commercial prospects from existing satellite/space manufacturers, they'd take a more conventional route to funding to get the thing built. For "Hey, wouldn't it be cool if...?" studies, I think this is a good way to go about it, and $40k of people already agree.
Wintamute 14y ago
Kickstarter is philanthropy, not investment. Didn't you realise?
incision 14y ago
Sarcasm? If not: "What is Kickstarter?" [1] 1: http://www.kickstarter.com/help/faq/kickstarter%20basics http://www.kickstarter.com/help/faq/kickstarter%20basics
InclinedPlane 14y ago
They're not building a company, they're building a proof of concept prototype. If it works out then they could start a company, in which case ordinary investors can trade money for equity as per usual. This is a project, which is what kickstarter is for.

by rorrr 14y ago

josephagoss 14y ago

Your right about the $69K thing, i'm surprised 4 engineers couldn't get together this money. Odd. If they were asking a for a million then the whole thing makes a lot more sense.

damncabbage 14y ago

$69K, really? Four engineers could not pitch in to get that much? How do you know this is the entire lot? The engineers seem to have invested a fair chunk of cash or resources into this already. I think this may be more PR (a good thing!) than a full funding drive.

shabble 14y ago

> Your highest investment pledge ($10k or more) is an insult to the investor. They will essentially pay for 1/7th of your company, while getting no % of your company in return. There's absolutely no way that this 70k is the value of the company. Their existing plant is probably worth 5-10x that even at bankruptcy auction prices. My understanding (although I haven't looked in too much depth) is that they're an established company doing work in one area (fabrication for plasma/fusion research) who have come up with a novel use for some of their tech/skills, but can't really justify the cost/opportunity cost of this particular app. So they're asking for essentially donations to develop the thing, in exchange for very low-cost returns plus a final project demo. It's really the patronage model applied to research. Also, for 10k you do get naming rights to the tech, and some advertising opportunity during the final tech demo, which is probably valuable to some companies, especially given the audience targeting this thing is likely to attract. Pitching for equity investment in the company requires a much more substantial business plan ("Make cool thing, produce internet videos & some research data" isn't really going to work), and it may just be that they don't see the value right now in doing the work necessary to attract those sorts of investors. I imagine if this test is successful and there is any hint of actual commercial prospects from existing satellite/space manufacturers, they'd take a more conventional route to funding to get the thing built. For "Hey, wouldn't it be cool if...?" studies, I think this is a good way to go about it, and $40k of people already agree.

Wintamute 14y ago

Kickstarter is philanthropy, not investment. Didn't you realise?

incision 14y ago

Sarcasm? If not: "What is Kickstarter?" [1] 1: http://www.kickstarter.com/help/faq/kickstarter%20basics http://www.kickstarter.com/help/faq/kickstarter%20basics

InclinedPlane 14y ago

They're not building a company, they're building a proof of concept prototype. If it works out then they could start a company, in which case ordinary investors can trade money for equity as per usual. This is a project, which is what kickstarter is for.