[liberationtech] Am I the only one who feels tricked by the Kickstarter campaign thinking that BRCK will be non-profit?

[J.M. Porup]

On Thu, Sep 18, 2014, at 00:35, Mitar wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 8:08 PM, Juan Batiz-Benet <juan at benet.ai> wrote:
> > Thank you Richard. Very well put. I wish more people understood things so
> > clearly. Many very smart people somehow believe tax status distinguishes
> > Good from Evil, completely ignoring a wealth of counter examples. Some of
> > the most glaring: SpaceX and MPAA.
> 
> OK. I would just add to this that what I am talking about is not the
> question if a project is for-profit or not for-profit. This is really
> for them to decide how they want to wrap it into an organization.
> There are advantages and disadvantages to any of these forms, both tax
> and other questions, like ways how to raise funding. And of course
> non-profits do not mean that they are "good" by itself. They can be
> misused as well. And I think what makes an organization "good" are
> mostly other things, not for-profit status.
> 
> What I am concerned is that they did not explain this initially. If
> they would, I would decide differently. Not because non-profits are
> "better", but exactly because non-profits have harder time raising
> funding otherwise and I like to help a little to overcome that. This
> is where I see crowdfunding an important part of this landscape. Being
> possible to get funding from the community and then being responsible
> to the community.

I wonder if equity crowdfunding would improve the "responsible to the
community" part.

Unlike regular crowdfunding, equity crowdfunding is like a mini-IPO
with a lot less overhead. Contributors buy shares in the venture.
The owners are responsible to shareholders.

The idea is gaining a lot of traction in the startup space, but could
offer a useful structure for funding less-profitable ventures as well.

Jens

--
J.M. Porup
www.JMPorup.com