5 ms·

What if, rather than offering equity, crowdfunders got voting rights instead. I feel that most of the outrage from the Oculus deal is that people feel betrayed.

What if, rather than offering equity, crowdfunders got voting rights instead. I feel that most of the outrage from the Oculus deal is that people feel betrayed. They could almost not have picked a worse outfit to have been bought by (rightly or wrongly, the point here is sentiment). If there had been a shareholder-esque vote, I think it's unlikely the deal would have been approved. So maybe that could be the deal going forward - sure I'll put up $100 to fund your project, but that comes at the cost of you not selling out in the future. EDIT: Clearly the weight of your vote would be proportional to your investment.

joncalhoun 13y ago
I don't know of any founder who would agree to this. Every founder I have met would never want to give a third party that much control unless absolutely necessary, which means the only companies who would agree to it are the ones who have no other choice.
mattzito 13y ago
This would be disastrous for startups - for $100 you get a say in what we do? How deep does that go? Change of control events? That would basically mean that a startup would have to disclose that they were in negotiations for acquisition/investment/whatever, with whom, and for how much. That would basically mean potential acquisitions would become public knowledge - it's hard enough keeping them quiet when it's just the startup, their investors, and the acquirer involved.
- backprojection 13y ago
  Well your vote would be proportional to your investment, $100 out of $2.4M, in this case. > That would basically mean potential acquisitions would become public knowledge That would kind of be the point, it would be about fairness. People may not want to invest in a promising project that could change the world, just for it to be bought up by the next FB/Google.
QuiteMouse 13y ago
I think the sale would still have gone though. For a lot of people putting in a small amount of money and getting a HUGE return on it is reward enough in it's own. So if some people put in 500-1000 and ended up getting 10x or more their investment back during an acquisition, unless they had some huge personal investment, it'd be hard to turn down that kind of money in the bank. I think this would be especially true if things went to scale. The big players would call the shots though and do the same thing as they do at the board now, choose the option that makes them the most $.

joncalhoun 13y ago

I don't know of any founder who would agree to this. Every founder I have met would never want to give a third party that much control unless absolutely necessary, which means the only companies who would agree to it are the ones who have no other choice.

mattzito 13y ago

This would be disastrous for startups - for $100 you get a say in what we do? How deep does that go? Change of control events? That would basically mean that a startup would have to disclose that they were in negotiations for acquisition/investment/whatever, with whom, and for how much. That would basically mean potential acquisitions would become public knowledge - it's hard enough keeping them quiet when it's just the startup, their investors, and the acquirer involved.

backprojection 13y ago
Well your vote would be proportional to your investment, $100 out of $2.4M, in this case. > That would basically mean potential acquisitions would become public knowledge That would kind of be the point, it would be about fairness. People may not want to invest in a promising project that could change the world, just for it to be bought up by the next FB/Google.

QuiteMouse 13y ago

I think the sale would still have gone though. For a lot of people putting in a small amount of money and getting a HUGE return on it is reward enough in it's own. So if some people put in 500-1000 and ended up getting 10x or more their investment back during an acquisition, unless they had some huge personal investment, it'd be hard to turn down that kind of money in the bank. I think this would be especially true if things went to scale. The big players would call the shots though and do the same thing as they do at the board now, choose the option that makes them the most $.