Sign in to follow this  
KestrelPi

The goal itself - 89%!!!

Recommended Posts

I still don't have much good data on Kickstarter campaigns run over the holidays. Most suggest there's a lull but it recovers in early Jan, some suggest it's not a problem. I am worried about the last two weeks of the year though. I think we want to be at 75% before then, ideally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It doesn't even have to be to do with SEC approval. According to the small print, at this stage I've made no pledge, and I will be contacted later to confirm my investment at which point I am free to do so or not.

It's true that backers can also cancel their pledges up to the end date, but at least they don't need to actively do anything and DF still gets paid. In this case, if I decide to do nothing, DF doesn't get my $500, even after the campaign is over. That's quiiite a lot different.

Like, if kickstarter worked by reserving interest and then actually backing at the end, I'd reserve lots of money every month, but I'd only end up confirming a bit of it. It's no good measure of how much money people actually WILL pledge, and more worryingly it's more open to abuse.

I hope, and think, that they have taken the number of investors that end up not being able to, or wanting to, to pay up, in the projects goal, considering how high it's been set. They have a fixed amount of $1 million that's available for unaccredited investors, and even if all that is reserved and then none of it being added to the campaign, they will still have reached at least $2.3 million, a goal that's higher then most of crowdfunding campaigns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It doesn't even have to be to do with SEC approval. According to the small print, at this stage I've made no pledge, and I will be contacted later to confirm my investment at which point I am free to do so or not.

It's true that backers can also cancel their pledges up to the end date, but at least they don't need to actively do anything and DF still gets paid. In this case, if I decide to do nothing, DF doesn't get my $500, even after the campaign is over. That's quiiite a lot different.

Like, if kickstarter worked by reserving interest and then actually backing at the end, I'd reserve lots of money every month, but I'd only end up confirming a bit of it. It's no good measure of how much money people actually WILL pledge, and more worryingly it's more open to abuse.

I hope, and think, that they have taken the number of investors that end up not being able to, or wanting to, to pay up, in the projects goal. They have a fixed amount of $1 million that's available for unaccredited investors, and even if all that is reserved and then none of it being added to the campaign, they will still have reached at least $2.3 million, a goal that's higher then most of crowdfunding campaigns.

Oh, I have to assume so too. But I don't like it on its face - it seems a little dishonest on the part of fig, to be honest, because it's counting money raised that has not, in fact, been pledged.

In fact, it seems clear that the fig portion of funding will be the smallest portion of the total. Not unimportant, but they are seeking a 10-13 million budget, and the crowdfunding bit falls pretty much inside that range. So I gotta imagine they wanted to raise as much this way as possible to get the project rolling, to take them up to the point where headlander and the other unannounced games are released and making them money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It doesn't even have to be to do with SEC approval. According to the small print, at this stage I've made no pledge, and I will be contacted later to confirm my investment at which point I am free to do so or not.

It's true that backers can also cancel their pledges up to the end date, but at least they don't need to actively do anything and DF still gets paid. In this case, if I decide to do nothing, DF doesn't get my $500, even after the campaign is over. That's quiiite a lot different.

Like, if kickstarter worked by reserving interest and then actually backing at the end, I'd reserve lots of money every month, but I'd only end up confirming a bit of it. It's no good measure of how much money people actually WILL pledge, and more worryingly it's more open to abuse.

I hope, and think, that they have taken the number of investors that end up not being able to, or wanting to, to pay up, in the projects goal. They have a fixed amount of $1 million that's available for unaccredited investors, and even if all that is reserved and then none of it being added to the campaign, they will still have reached at least $2.3 million, a goal that's higher then most of crowdfunding campaigns.

Oh, I have to assume so too. But I don't like it on its face - it seems a little dishonest on the part of fig, to be honest, because it's counting money raised that has not, in fact, been pledged.

In fact, it seems clear that the fig portion of funding will be the smallest portion of the total. Not unimportant, but they are seeking a 10-13 million budget, and the crowdfunding bit falls pretty much inside that range. So I gotta imagine they wanted to raise as much this way as possible to get the project rolling, to take them up to the point where headlander and the other unannounced games are released and making them money.

Fig has always been about investors and backers coming together to make a project. That's why Tim showed that 50% of the amount raised will come from investors, and 50% will come from backers. And that's about accurate now. If you click the i icon under the total, you can see how much came from which, and you can see that right now, there is more money coming from backers ($1,004,000), but the investors are not far behind ($920,000).

That's the whole reason why Fig was founded, because gaming Kickstarters were getting flack because investors were helping to make a project a reality, and Fig was created with open transparency in mind. The fact that you can see how much each part helped in the funding doesn't seem dishonest at all, since it is very clear and open.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It doesn't even have to be to do with SEC approval. According to the small print, at this stage I've made no pledge, and I will be contacted later to confirm my investment at which point I am free to do so or not.

It's true that backers can also cancel their pledges up to the end date, but at least they don't need to actively do anything and DF still gets paid. In this case, if I decide to do nothing, DF doesn't get my $500, even after the campaign is over. That's quiiite a lot different.

Like, if kickstarter worked by reserving interest and then actually backing at the end, I'd reserve lots of money every month, but I'd only end up confirming a bit of it. It's no good measure of how much money people actually WILL pledge, and more worryingly it's more open to abuse.

I hope, and think, that they have taken the number of investors that end up not being able to, or wanting to, to pay up, in the projects goal. They have a fixed amount of $1 million that's available for unaccredited investors, and even if all that is reserved and then none of it being added to the campaign, they will still have reached at least $2.3 million, a goal that's higher then most of crowdfunding campaigns.

Oh, I have to assume so too. But I don't like it on its face - it seems a little dishonest on the part of fig, to be honest, because it's counting money raised that has not, in fact, been pledged.

In fact, it seems clear that the fig portion of funding will be the smallest portion of the total. Not unimportant, but they are seeking a 10-13 million budget, and the crowdfunding bit falls pretty much inside that range. So I gotta imagine they wanted to raise as much this way as possible to get the project rolling, to take them up to the point where headlander and the other unannounced games are released and making them money.

Fig has always been about investors and backers coming together to make a project. That's why Tim showed that 50% of the amount raised will come from investors, and 50% will come from backers. And that's about accurate now. If you click the i icon under the total, you can see how much came from which, and you can see that right now, there is more money coming from backers ($1,003,000), but the investors are not far behind ($920,000).

That's the whole reason why Fig was founded, because gaming Kickstarters were getting flack because investors were helping to make a project a reality, and Fig was created with open transparency in mind. The fact that you can see how much each part helped in the funding doesn't seem dishonest at all, since it is very clear and open.

Sorry - you're missing the point. Nobody is complaining that there's a mixture of investing and backing in the total. The problem is that the investors have not actually committed ANY money, at least the unaccredited ones. When you go the the page, it says that you can reserve your option to invest to january, and the small print confirms that at this stage, nobody is under any obligation to actually follow through. THAT money (which I have confirmed is added to the total) is what I am saying seems dishonest.

You cannot cancel your reservation of shares, but you're perfectly entitled just not to go through with it in January, because right now there's no commitment. In january, everyone who clicked that button (over 300k of the money so far has to, mathematically, be from this unaccredited route) and reserved shares will be contacted, and at that point they will have to actively confirm they want to go ahead with the investment, or that money doesn't happen. As yet, no pledge has been made by these investors. That's the problem here.

Many people could be registering interest purely out of interest so that they can review the detailed terms in january, since no bank details exchange hands at this time. Even worse, it's open to abuse from people pledging a lot of money, knowing full well they have no intention of following through, which is also a risk with backing, but less so because there at least there is an actual pledge that you might be nervous about leaving on the books in case you forget to pull out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It doesn't even have to be to do with SEC approval. According to the small print, at this stage I've made no pledge, and I will be contacted later to confirm my investment at which point I am free to do so or not.

It's true that backers can also cancel their pledges up to the end date, but at least they don't need to actively do anything and DF still gets paid. In this case, if I decide to do nothing, DF doesn't get my $500, even after the campaign is over. That's quiiite a lot different.

Like, if kickstarter worked by reserving interest and then actually backing at the end, I'd reserve lots of money every month, but I'd only end up confirming a bit of it. It's no good measure of how much money people actually WILL pledge, and more worryingly it's more open to abuse.

I hope, and think, that they have taken the number of investors that end up not being able to, or wanting to, to pay up, in the projects goal. They have a fixed amount of $1 million that's available for unaccredited investors, and even if all that is reserved and then none of it being added to the campaign, they will still have reached at least $2.3 million, a goal that's higher then most of crowdfunding campaigns.

Oh, I have to assume so too. But I don't like it on its face - it seems a little dishonest on the part of fig, to be honest, because it's counting money raised that has not, in fact, been pledged.

In fact, it seems clear that the fig portion of funding will be the smallest portion of the total. Not unimportant, but they are seeking a 10-13 million budget, and the crowdfunding bit falls pretty much inside that range. So I gotta imagine they wanted to raise as much this way as possible to get the project rolling, to take them up to the point where headlander and the other unannounced games are released and making them money.

Fig has always been about investors and backers coming together to make a project. That's why Tim showed that 50% of the amount raised will come from investors, and 50% will come from backers. And that's about accurate now. If you click the i icon under the total, you can see how much came from which, and you can see that right now, there is more money coming from backers ($1,003,000), but the investors are not far behind ($920,000).

That's the whole reason why Fig was founded, because gaming Kickstarters were getting flack because investors were helping to make a project a reality, and Fig was created with open transparency in mind. The fact that you can see how much each part helped in the funding doesn't seem dishonest at all, since it is very clear and open.

Sorry - you're missing the point. Nobody is complaining that there's a mixture of investing and backing in the total. The problem is that the investors have not actually committed ANY money, at least the unaccredited ones. When you go the the page, it says that you can reserve your option to invest to january, and the small print confirms that at this stage, nobody is under any obligation to actually follow through. THAT money (which I have confirmed is added to the total) is what I am saying seems dishonest.

You cannot cancel your reservation of shares, but you're perfectly entitled just not to go through with it in January, because right now there's no commitment. In january, everyone who clicked that button (over 300k of the money so far has to, mathematically, be from this unaccredited route) and reserved shares will be contacted, and at that point they will have to actively confirm they want to go ahead with the investment, or that money doesn't happen. As yet, no pledge has been made by these investors. That's the problem here.

Sorry, I updated my post after I posted, but before you replied. I'll post it again here. Not all of the pledges in Kickstarters are collected at the end either. There are some that aren’t paid due to credit cards being declined. The total doesn’t go down after that either.

There have been many Kickstarters that I've pledged where I've gotten messages from the people who ran the campaign that the campaign will be held off for a week until they get their final total since they had a lot of people who had their credit cards declined. The people with the credit cards declined are only given a week to fix it, after that the money isn't taken and the Kickstarter campaign is out that money, without the total dropping.

That doesn't seem any different than is happening here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It doesn't even have to be to do with SEC approval. According to the small print, at this stage I've made no pledge, and I will be contacted later to confirm my investment at which point I am free to do so or not.

It's true that backers can also cancel their pledges up to the end date, but at least they don't need to actively do anything and DF still gets paid. In this case, if I decide to do nothing, DF doesn't get my $500, even after the campaign is over. That's quiiite a lot different.

Like, if kickstarter worked by reserving interest and then actually backing at the end, I'd reserve lots of money every month, but I'd only end up confirming a bit of it. It's no good measure of how much money people actually WILL pledge, and more worryingly it's more open to abuse.

I hope, and think, that they have taken the number of investors that end up not being able to, or wanting to, to pay up, in the projects goal. They have a fixed amount of $1 million that's available for unaccredited investors, and even if all that is reserved and then none of it being added to the campaign, they will still have reached at least $2.3 million, a goal that's higher then most of crowdfunding campaigns.

Oh, I have to assume so too. But I don't like it on its face - it seems a little dishonest on the part of fig, to be honest, because it's counting money raised that has not, in fact, been pledged.

In fact, it seems clear that the fig portion of funding will be the smallest portion of the total. Not unimportant, but they are seeking a 10-13 million budget, and the crowdfunding bit falls pretty much inside that range. So I gotta imagine they wanted to raise as much this way as possible to get the project rolling, to take them up to the point where headlander and the other unannounced games are released and making them money.

Fig has always been about investors and backers coming together to make a project. That's why Tim showed that 50% of the amount raised will come from investors, and 50% will come from backers. And that's about accurate now. If you click the i icon under the total, you can see how much came from which, and you can see that right now, there is more money coming from backers ($1,003,000), but the investors are not far behind ($920,000).

That's the whole reason why Fig was founded, because gaming Kickstarters were getting flack because investors were helping to make a project a reality, and Fig was created with open transparency in mind. The fact that you can see how much each part helped in the funding doesn't seem dishonest at all, since it is very clear and open.

Sorry - you're missing the point. Nobody is complaining that there's a mixture of investing and backing in the total. The problem is that the investors have not actually committed ANY money, at least the unaccredited ones. When you go the the page, it says that you can reserve your option to invest to january, and the small print confirms that at this stage, nobody is under any obligation to actually follow through. THAT money (which I have confirmed is added to the total) is what I am saying seems dishonest.

You cannot cancel your reservation of shares, but you're perfectly entitled just not to go through with it in January, because right now there's no commitment. In january, everyone who clicked that button (over 300k of the money so far has to, mathematically, be from this unaccredited route) and reserved shares will be contacted, and at that point they will have to actively confirm they want to go ahead with the investment, or that money doesn't happen. As yet, no pledge has been made by these investors. That's the problem here.

Sorry, I updated my post after I posted, but before you replied. I'll post it again here. Not all of the pledges in Kickstarters are collected at the end either. There are some that aren’t paid due to credit cards being declined. The total doesn’t go down after that either.

I don't see what difference that makes. That's a credit card being declined or a small number of dishonest pledges. Here we're talking about a mere reservation of an investment option being treated as if it's a pledge. That's a huge difference.

That's like if there was a box on kickstarter that said 'how much might you hypothetically like to pledge?' and whatever was put in that box got added to the total, regardless of whether they actually intended to do so or not. It's a different question.

We're not talking about people being unable to pay up their investment because they don't really have the money, like with the credit card example. This is VERY different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It doesn't even have to be to do with SEC approval. According to the small print, at this stage I've made no pledge, and I will be contacted later to confirm my investment at which point I am free to do so or not.

It's true that backers can also cancel their pledges up to the end date, but at least they don't need to actively do anything and DF still gets paid. In this case, if I decide to do nothing, DF doesn't get my $500, even after the campaign is over. That's quiiite a lot different.

Like, if kickstarter worked by reserving interest and then actually backing at the end, I'd reserve lots of money every month, but I'd only end up confirming a bit of it. It's no good measure of how much money people actually WILL pledge, and more worryingly it's more open to abuse.

I hope, and think, that they have taken the number of investors that end up not being able to, or wanting to, to pay up, in the projects goal. They have a fixed amount of $1 million that's available for unaccredited investors, and even if all that is reserved and then none of it being added to the campaign, they will still have reached at least $2.3 million, a goal that's higher then most of crowdfunding campaigns.

Oh, I have to assume so too. But I don't like it on its face - it seems a little dishonest on the part of fig, to be honest, because it's counting money raised that has not, in fact, been pledged.

In fact, it seems clear that the fig portion of funding will be the smallest portion of the total. Not unimportant, but they are seeking a 10-13 million budget, and the crowdfunding bit falls pretty much inside that range. So I gotta imagine they wanted to raise as much this way as possible to get the project rolling, to take them up to the point where headlander and the other unannounced games are released and making them money.

Fig has always been about investors and backers coming together to make a project. That's why Tim showed that 50% of the amount raised will come from investors, and 50% will come from backers. And that's about accurate now. If you click the i icon under the total, you can see how much came from which, and you can see that right now, there is more money coming from backers ($1,003,000), but the investors are not far behind ($920,000).

That's the whole reason why Fig was founded, because gaming Kickstarters were getting flack because investors were helping to make a project a reality, and Fig was created with open transparency in mind. The fact that you can see how much each part helped in the funding doesn't seem dishonest at all, since it is very clear and open.

Sorry - you're missing the point. Nobody is complaining that there's a mixture of investing and backing in the total. The problem is that the investors have not actually committed ANY money, at least the unaccredited ones. When you go the the page, it says that you can reserve your option to invest to january, and the small print confirms that at this stage, nobody is under any obligation to actually follow through. THAT money (which I have confirmed is added to the total) is what I am saying seems dishonest.

You cannot cancel your reservation of shares, but you're perfectly entitled just not to go through with it in January, because right now there's no commitment. In january, everyone who clicked that button (over 300k of the money so far has to, mathematically, be from this unaccredited route) and reserved shares will be contacted, and at that point they will have to actively confirm they want to go ahead with the investment, or that money doesn't happen. As yet, no pledge has been made by these investors. That's the problem here.

Sorry, I updated my post after I posted, but before you replied. I'll post it again here. Not all of the pledges in Kickstarters are collected at the end either. There are some that aren’t paid due to credit cards being declined. The total doesn’t go down after that either.

I don't see what difference that makes. That's a credit card being declined or a small number of dishonest pledges. Here we're talking about a mere reservation of an investment option being treated as if it's a pledge. That's a huge difference.

How does that make it different? Both funding options don't raise the total at the end, but still are counted towards the total. The ability for the total to go down based on funding that isn't actually there is possible in both cases, but isn't explicitly mentioned by either.

Fig has to follow SEC regulations, and as of March of this year, that counts non-accredited investors as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It doesn't even have to be to do with SEC approval. According to the small print, at this stage I've made no pledge, and I will be contacted later to confirm my investment at which point I am free to do so or not.

It's true that backers can also cancel their pledges up to the end date, but at least they don't need to actively do anything and DF still gets paid. In this case, if I decide to do nothing, DF doesn't get my $500, even after the campaign is over. That's quiiite a lot different.

Like, if kickstarter worked by reserving interest and then actually backing at the end, I'd reserve lots of money every month, but I'd only end up confirming a bit of it. It's no good measure of how much money people actually WILL pledge, and more worryingly it's more open to abuse.

I hope, and think, that they have taken the number of investors that end up not being able to, or wanting to, to pay up, in the projects goal. They have a fixed amount of $1 million that's available for unaccredited investors, and even if all that is reserved and then none of it being added to the campaign, they will still have reached at least $2.3 million, a goal that's higher then most of crowdfunding campaigns.

Oh, I have to assume so too. But I don't like it on its face - it seems a little dishonest on the part of fig, to be honest, because it's counting money raised that has not, in fact, been pledged.

In fact, it seems clear that the fig portion of funding will be the smallest portion of the total. Not unimportant, but they are seeking a 10-13 million budget, and the crowdfunding bit falls pretty much inside that range. So I gotta imagine they wanted to raise as much this way as possible to get the project rolling, to take them up to the point where headlander and the other unannounced games are released and making them money.

Fig has always been about investors and backers coming together to make a project. That's why Tim showed that 50% of the amount raised will come from investors, and 50% will come from backers. And that's about accurate now. If you click the i icon under the total, you can see how much came from which, and you can see that right now, there is more money coming from backers ($1,003,000), but the investors are not far behind ($920,000).

That's the whole reason why Fig was founded, because gaming Kickstarters were getting flack because investors were helping to make a project a reality, and Fig was created with open transparency in mind. The fact that you can see how much each part helped in the funding doesn't seem dishonest at all, since it is very clear and open.

Sorry - you're missing the point. Nobody is complaining that there's a mixture of investing and backing in the total. The problem is that the investors have not actually committed ANY money, at least the unaccredited ones. When you go the the page, it says that you can reserve your option to invest to january, and the small print confirms that at this stage, nobody is under any obligation to actually follow through. THAT money (which I have confirmed is added to the total) is what I am saying seems dishonest.

You cannot cancel your reservation of shares, but you're perfectly entitled just not to go through with it in January, because right now there's no commitment. In january, everyone who clicked that button (over 300k of the money so far has to, mathematically, be from this unaccredited route) and reserved shares will be contacted, and at that point they will have to actively confirm they want to go ahead with the investment, or that money doesn't happen. As yet, no pledge has been made by these investors. That's the problem here.

Sorry, I updated my post after I posted, but before you replied. I'll post it again here. Not all of the pledges in Kickstarters are collected at the end either. There are some that aren’t paid due to credit cards being declined. The total doesn’t go down after that either.

I don't see what difference that makes. That's a credit card being declined or a small number of dishonest pledges. Here we're talking about a mere reservation of an investment option being treated as if it's a pledge. That's a huge difference.

How does that make it different? Both funding options don't raise the total at the end, but still are counted towards the total.

They have to follow SEC regulations, and that counts non-accredited investors as well.

I don't know how else to explain this...

* In your kickstarter example, regardless of what happens, a pledge is a pledge. A small amount are dishonest, or declined, but the principle is that when you pledge, until such point that you actively withdraw your pledge, you are committing to paying the money.

* In this fig unaccredited investor example, there is no pledge. There's just a signup page where you say how much you might like to invest, in increments of $500. No money is automatically deducted at the end, nor does the investor have any commitment to actually following through and investing, because they haven't made a pledge. Later, in order to actually give up their money, they have to actively follow up the investment option.

It's a different question being asked. It doesn't even make sense to put them into the same total. It would be like if kickstarter totals included people who had actually pledged money and people who kinda-sorta were thinking about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know how else to explain this...

* In your kickstarter example, regardless of what happens, a pledge is a pledge. A small amount are dishonest, or declined, but the principle is that when you pledge, until such point that you actively withdraw your pledge, you are committing to paying the money.

* In this fig unaccredited investor example, there is no pledge. There's just a signup page where you say how much you might like to invest, in increments of $500. No money is automatically deducted at the end, nor does the investor have any commitment to actually following through and investing, because they haven't made a pledge. Later, in order to actually give up their money, they have to actively follow up the investment option.

It's a different question being asked.

It's a restriction on how investment works, as every investor has to actually go through a vetting process, since Fig has to show the SEC that investors are "sophisticated", or knowledgable in financial matters, even the unaccredited ones.

There's no other way they can do it, as investment simply isn't as straightforward as pledges. It's not dishonest in that the investors actually are making their investments known, just as the pledges are. It's just the pledges are collected at the end of the campaign (except those that are declined), and the investors have to go through an SEC mandated vetting period.

Both cases are making their intentions known, and in both cases it's possible for those intentions to not come through. The total still reflects intentions and not actual totals in both cases. The amount of people actually using it without intentions to pay are likely to be just a fraction of the total amount raised in both cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know how else to explain this...

* In your kickstarter example, regardless of what happens, a pledge is a pledge. A small amount are dishonest, or declined, but the principle is that when you pledge, until such point that you actively withdraw your pledge, you are committing to paying the money.

* In this fig unaccredited investor example, there is no pledge. There's just a signup page where you say how much you might like to invest, in increments of $500. No money is automatically deducted at the end, nor does the investor have any commitment to actually following through and investing, because they haven't made a pledge. Later, in order to actually give up their money, they have to actively follow up the investment option.

It's a different question being asked.

It's a restriction on how investment works, as every investor has to actually go through a vetting process, since Fig has to show the SEC that investors are "sophisticated", or knowledgable in financial matters, even the unaccredited ones.

There's no other way they can do it, as investment simply isn't as straightforward as pledges. It's not dishonest in that the investors actually are making their investments known, just as the pledges are. It's just the pledges are collected at the end of the campaign (except those that are declined), and the investors have to go through an SEC mandated vetting period.

Both cases are making their intentions known, and in both cases it's possible for those intentions to not come through. The total still reflects intentions and not actual totals in both cases. The amount of people actually using it without intentions to pay are likely to be just a fraction of the total amount raised in both cases.

That's fine, but then if that's the ONLY way to do it, then putting them in the same total IS a problem, because these are not pledges. They're speculative declarations of interest that place nobody under any obligation while they're active. A pledge does place you under an obligation, even if it's one you're free to withdraw from up until the end date (or might go sour if the card is declined). Different question, so I don't get how the first one could possibly legitimately contribute toward a total money raised.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad it does, but they don't make it clear that a large portion of the investment money is quite likely to actually just... not happen.

And I simply disagree with your statement that 'The amount of people actually using it without intentions to pay are likely to be just a fraction of the total amount raised in both cases.'

I am about 60/40 on whether I'm going to invest. I'll have to read the full terms when the time comes. I reserved the option just as that - an option. I will look into it in detail when the time comes and make my decision, as any investor should. The investor page makes it clear that's what I'm doing. The money raised total doesn't make it clear it includes such unsecure money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad it does, but they don't make it clear that a large portion of the investment money is quite likely to actually just... not happen.

And I simply disagree with your statement that 'The amount of people actually using it without intentions to pay are likely to be just a fraction of the total amount raised in both cases.'

I am about 60/40 on whether I'm going to invest. I'll have to read the full terms when the time comes. I reserved the option just as that - an option. I will look into it in detail when the time comes and make my decision, as any investor should. The investor page makes it clear that's what I'm doing. The money raised total doesn't make it clear it includes such unsecure money.

I really highly doubt that the amount of people not investing after the period is going to be as high as you think it is. Just like backing, people usually don't announce their intention to pay money (which is what they're doing with both the crowdfunding and the investments) unless they're willing to follow through. The investment terms are definitely much different from backing, but the intention to pay is still there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad it does, but they don't make it clear that a large portion of the investment money is quite likely to actually just... not happen.

And I simply disagree with your statement that 'The amount of people actually using it without intentions to pay are likely to be just a fraction of the total amount raised in both cases.'

I am about 60/40 on whether I'm going to invest. I'll have to read the full terms when the time comes. I reserved the option just as that - an option. I will look into it in detail when the time comes and make my decision, as any investor should. The investor page makes it clear that's what I'm doing. The money raised total doesn't make it clear it includes such unsecure money.

I really highly doubt that it's going to be as high as you think it is. Just like backing, people usually don't announce their intention to pay money (which is what they're doing with both the crowdfunding and the investments) unless they're willing to follow through. The investment terms are definitely much different from backing, but the intention to pay is still there.

It isn't an announcement of an intention to pay money in any way. In fact, it explicitly states that it's not. That's the whole difference.

Here:

We will notify you by email when unaccredited investment for Psychonauts 2 launches, at which point you will have access to the complete terms of the investment and the option to invest. The actual amount you are able to invest may vary from your reservation amount. No money or other consideration is being solicited hereby, and if sent in response, will not be accepted. The “testing-the-waters” information presented is for a potential securities offering pursuant to Regulation A that provides an exemption from the registration requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. No sales will be made or commitments to purchase accepted until the offering statement is qualified by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), and any such offer may be withdrawn or revoked, without obligation or commitment of any kind, at any time before notice of its acceptance is given after the qualification date. Your indication of interest is non-binding and involves no obligation or commitment of any kind.

They couldn't be clearer that at this stage this is a (their words) 'testing the waters' statement of interest. Not a statement of intention to pay. If I had thought that it constituted something like a pledge, I wouldn't have gone for it. Come January, I may not act. And I'm a huge DF fan!

On the other hand, I very rarely withdraw pledges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the point is that the people who are likely to go for the investment option are usually people who at least sort of understand what the process entails and not just your average crowd funder. Anyway, the whole adding things up is probably just how the software for the site works and I imagine that these investment thingies will be cleared up one way or another before the end of the campaign and the total will go up or down as required. Withdrawn pledges happen all the time with Kickstarter, even the big $1000 plus ones. It's far to early to be worrying about that sort of thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the point is that the people who are likely to go for the investment option are usually people who at least sort of understand what the process entails and not just your average crowd funder. Anyway, the whole adding things up is probably just how the software for the site works and I imagine that these investment thingies will be cleared up one way or another before the end of the campaign and the total will go up or down as required. Withdrawn pledges happen all the time with Kickstarter, even the big $1000 plus ones. It's far to early to be worrying about that sort of thing.

Right, but those pledges have to be withdrawn before the end of the campaign, unless it's declined by the bank.

Here we have non-pledges which actually can't be withdrawn (I've tried, because while my interest was genuine I felt ambivalent about being added to the total) but need to be actively followed up.

And it's precisely because the investors are more likely to understand what they are getting into that they're more likely to want to not go ahead once the full terms are revealed to them in January. It wouldn't at all surprise me if 50% of the registered investment interest never turns into actual investment. I don't think that's a disaster for the project, but it's definitely a weird thing to count toward a funding total.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to add that there's a big difference between crowd funding and investing. With investing you're doing it to make money. The idea is to make a return for yourself, not give money to a company you like in return for software. I just wanted to add that because it sounded like it was being forgotten.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just want to add that there's a big difference between crowd funding and investing. With investing you're doing it to make money. The idea is to make a return for yourself, not give money to a company you like. Just wanted to add that because it sounded like it was being forgotten.

Yes, obviously I'm interested because I like DF, but I'm also interested in being able to contribute in a way that I should get my money back, eventually, and may even go on to make a profit out of it. It's a gamble, and one I'll look into whether it's actually feasible when the time comes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ooh 60%.

If the rate keeps up since a lot of people don't immediately pledge then the things are looking good.

I suspect that majority of the backers are from US as it seems to speed up when there's a daytime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ooh 60%.

If the rate keeps up since a lot of people don't immediately pledge then the things are looking good.

I suspect that majority of the backers are from US as it seems to speed up when there's a daytime.

If it follows the pattern other crowdfunding campaigns seem to follow, it'll get a big boost in the last day or two as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It makes sense when you think about it.

People who understand English well are more likely to back it than those who don't or their English is really poor.

Some really demand their French etc localizations or they don't buy a game. I'm pretty sure they have that covered but those consumers want those kind of confirmations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish there were a way for fig to use some of the funding strategies seen in public radio drives, such as finding investors who are willing to do brief windows of matching regular backer contributions dollar-for-dollar within a certain time window (e.g. within just a period of 1 or 2 hours or however much they want to do).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In case you thought I was joking. The X axis is days since it hit 42 percent, Y axis is percentage, obviously. As you can see, the curve formed by the data points so far is very slight, it's very linear, which is good. But in any case I sketched a couple of possible trends for the next week.

psychonauts 2 trends.jpg

578d00a232aad_psychonauts2trends.jpg.5cd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In case you thought I was joking. The X axis is days since it hit 42 percent, Y axis is percentage, obviously. As you can see, the curve formed by the data points so far is very slight, it's very linear, which is good. But in any case I sketched a couple of possible trends for the next week.

Okay, now do a bar graph with days on X and money pledged on per day on Y.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something we havent considered is the possibility that at some point the 1 million cap on unaccredited investment will be hit, and after that point there might be a sudden slow down in funding.

I suspect it's this investment source which is providing a flatter curve than most crowdfunding projects, since a steady trickle of 500s and 1k and the occasional bigger amount is making up for fewer backers. I think perhaps at some point investors MAY overtake backers in funding amount.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In case you thought I was joking. The X axis is days since it hit 42 percent, Y axis is percentage, obviously. As you can see, the curve formed by the data points so far is very slight, it's very linear, which is good. But in any case I sketched a couple of possible trends for the next week.

Okay, now do a bar graph with days on X and money pledged on per day on Y.

What time was the fig campaign launched? It was the first hours of Friday where I live, but I don't know exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Something we havent considered is the possibility that at some point the 1 million cap on unaccredited investment will be hit, and after that point there might be a sudden slow down in funding.

We've just hit the 1 million dollars of investments, although we don't know what part of that is from unaccredited investors. I'm curious to see if it will slow down now. I hope there'll still be a lot of interest from accredited investors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Something we havent considered is the possibility that at some point the 1 million cap on unaccredited investment will be hit, and after that point there might be a sudden slow down in funding.

We've just hit the 1 million dollars of investments, although we don't know what part of that is from unaccredited investors. I'm curious to see if it will slow down now. I hope there'll still be a lot of interest from accredited investors.

You're right. It's on exactly 1 million now, which would suggest no accredited investors have been added yet. I would expect a severe slowdown in the rate of pledges now. Perhaps half the speed it was, considering investment comprises half the pledges so far.

This means it could be several days before we hit 70% unless DF are ready with the next big batch of PR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this