5 ms·

In that reguard, its the same thing it's always been. A gift. Reciprocity is not required by law, only common decency. The new about kickstarter is it seems we'

In that reguard, its the same thing it's always been. A gift. Reciprocity is not required by law, only common decency. The new about kickstarter is it seems we're looking for something more than a gift, less than a regulated investment and not quite a sale. That's novel.

avar 13y ago
Maybe you're looking for something more than a gift, but are you actually entitled to more than that? Are you a shareholder in these companies than you fund through Kickstarter? I think not. So why do you think you have any rights beyond someone who's donating money to a cause that may never pan out? It's perfectly fine to fund something through Kickstarter, but for some reason it seems that some people doing it think they're entering into a deal that isn't really there. Generally when you give money through Kickstarter you're giving it away without any string attached, only if the company pans out might you actually get some small gift, not a share of the profit. What's so hard to understand about that? The model's fine. The problem is that for some reason people donating to it think of themselves as shareholders, not donors.
- gfodor 13y ago
  You are not listening to the person you are responding to. Nobody is going to argue that kickstarter backers are entitled to equity in the company, or that they have legal rights beyond what is guaranteed in the kickstarter. What the person is trying to get across is that in any financial transaction there are non-legal aspects involved. There are human relationships. The world runs on favors as much as it runs on contracts. No single transaction stands alone: you have a personal reputation based on your actions and ethics dictate what other people are going to think of you. If someone gives you a deal on favorable terms, it's generally understood that you will remember that and act accordingly in the future. It's not specifically outlined and it's not a hard rule, but in general, when people donate to a kickstarter they are doing so under the assumption that the person receiving that money is going to act in a way that doesn't undermine their trust. Turning around and selling your company to Facebook leaves a bad taste in peoples' mouths, since the company was built on the money they donated to make it possible. Do they have a legal right to compensation? Of course not. Do they have a right to be emotionally hurt by this? Sure, and it's not unjustified.
  - avar 13y ago
    I'm listening. Are you? The parent of this thread quoted: "And I did not chip in ten grand to seed a first investment round to build value for a Facebook acquisition." If you didn't chip in ten grand of seed money for that purpose why didn't you make that part of the deal then? There are no non-legal aspects of financial transactions. When you give someone money they're going to try to retain that money and not give it back to you to the best of their legal ability. There really isn't a non-legal aspect involved in it unless you're a sucker who's willing to get screwed over. Who cares about the value of their reputation when they've been bought by Facebook for some undisclosed value? Surely that's worth more to them than their reputation, seeing as they now have enough money to never work again with the people who'd care about their reputation.
    - gfodor 13y ago
      I mean, we're going to disagree on this: > There are no non-legal aspects of financial transactions. When you give someone money they're going to try to retain that money and not give it back to you to the best of their legal ability. There really isn't a non-legal aspect involved in it unless you're a sucker who's willing to get screwed over. This isn't really true, if you plan on doing business for more than one transaction. If you put a poison pill in a contract, guess what, you are blacklisted and can't do any deals in the future because nobody trusts you. A similar thing is here. People chipped in money with the general expectation that Oculus was not going to sell out on the drop of a hat. It wasn't in the terms obviously but that was the expectation for many people. As such it's pretty much guaranteed for example that Palmer will never be able to do a kickstarter ever again (not that he cares at this point.) But it's a very real consequence, and so even though it was not in the deal in terms of legal consequences it is a very real outcome. If you look at negotiations and transactions as if they are strictly independent events completely detached from human relationships you're probably a terrible negotiator slash businessperson. It's the difference between law and politics. I'll happily do a deal that isn't exactly a home run for me if I want to be sure I'll have a good relationship with that person for future opportunities.
      - avar 13y ago

avar 13y ago

Maybe you're looking for something more than a gift, but are you actually entitled to more than that? Are you a shareholder in these companies than you fund through Kickstarter? I think not. So why do you think you have any rights beyond someone who's donating money to a cause that may never pan out? It's perfectly fine to fund something through Kickstarter, but for some reason it seems that some people doing it think they're entering into a deal that isn't really there. Generally when you give money through Kickstarter you're giving it away without any string attached, only if the company pans out might you actually get some small gift, not a share of the profit. What's so hard to understand about that? The model's fine. The problem is that for some reason people donating to it think of themselves as shareholders, not donors.

gfodor 13y ago
You are not listening to the person you are responding to. Nobody is going to argue that kickstarter backers are entitled to equity in the company, or that they have legal rights beyond what is guaranteed in the kickstarter. What the person is trying to get across is that in any financial transaction there are non-legal aspects involved. There are human relationships. The world runs on favors as much as it runs on contracts. No single transaction stands alone: you have a personal reputation based on your actions and ethics dictate what other people are going to think of you. If someone gives you a deal on favorable terms, it's generally understood that you will remember that and act accordingly in the future. It's not specifically outlined and it's not a hard rule, but in general, when people donate to a kickstarter they are doing so under the assumption that the person receiving that money is going to act in a way that doesn't undermine their trust. Turning around and selling your company to Facebook leaves a bad taste in peoples' mouths, since the company was built on the money they donated to make it possible. Do they have a legal right to compensation? Of course not. Do they have a right to be emotionally hurt by this? Sure, and it's not unjustified.
- avar 13y ago
  I'm listening. Are you? The parent of this thread quoted: "And I did not chip in ten grand to seed a first investment round to build value for a Facebook acquisition." If you didn't chip in ten grand of seed money for that purpose why didn't you make that part of the deal then? There are no non-legal aspects of financial transactions. When you give someone money they're going to try to retain that money and not give it back to you to the best of their legal ability. There really isn't a non-legal aspect involved in it unless you're a sucker who's willing to get screwed over. Who cares about the value of their reputation when they've been bought by Facebook for some undisclosed value? Surely that's worth more to them than their reputation, seeing as they now have enough money to never work again with the people who'd care about their reputation.
  - gfodor 13y ago
    I mean, we're going to disagree on this: > There are no non-legal aspects of financial transactions. When you give someone money they're going to try to retain that money and not give it back to you to the best of their legal ability. There really isn't a non-legal aspect involved in it unless you're a sucker who's willing to get screwed over. This isn't really true, if you plan on doing business for more than one transaction. If you put a poison pill in a contract, guess what, you are blacklisted and can't do any deals in the future because nobody trusts you. A similar thing is here. People chipped in money with the general expectation that Oculus was not going to sell out on the drop of a hat. It wasn't in the terms obviously but that was the expectation for many people. As such it's pretty much guaranteed for example that Palmer will never be able to do a kickstarter ever again (not that he cares at this point.) But it's a very real consequence, and so even though it was not in the deal in terms of legal consequences it is a very real outcome. If you look at negotiations and transactions as if they are strictly independent events completely detached from human relationships you're probably a terrible negotiator slash businessperson. It's the difference between law and politics. I'll happily do a deal that isn't exactly a home run for me if I want to be sure I'll have a good relationship with that person for future opportunities.
    - avar 13y ago