Talk:Crowdfunding

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Where does this fit?[edit]

Ethereum was funded with a crowdfunded "tokensale" of the new value token called "Ether", a Bitcoin-like cryptocurrency where the funders, who offered Bitcoin at time of the tokensale (rate varied between approximately 2000 Ether per Bitcoin at the start of the sale, decreasing to something like 1300 toward the end (some 30 or 60 days later); sale was done in July/August 2014. Goal of sale was to fund the development of the new Ethereum distributed computing platform (c. 80% of the $18 million raised went to that), with about 10% to the Ethereum Foundation (a non-profit trade organization) and about 10% "premined" to reward the 80+ folks who had worked on development prior to Aug 2014.

Question: where does something like this fit in the taxonomy in this article? Not strictly a reward-based, not really traditional equity, etc. N2e (talk) 04:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't fit anywhere as it stands because it is unsourced. Outside of that, I don't reckon it fits anywhere as this article is about crowdfunding not the companies that received it. It would balloon crazily if it this article included such content. Jytdog (talk) 19:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Huh? Of course is would have to be sourced to be in the article, per ordinary WP:V policy. So that straw man is irrelevant to my question.
Since that sort of token sale is occurring from time to time, and some subset of those token sales are quite notable (with multiple reliable sources), and since it is unquestionably a type of crowdfunding (value is being raised, from a crowd, for funding a project), the question is, where would this particular sort of crowdfunding fit it this article?
That's a serious question to editors of this article. The existing section structure seems to not let it fit in any particular section. Was just trying to get other editor input into the question before adding a notable crowdfund or two to the article prose. CHeers. N2e (talk) 15:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Glancing at Ethereum, I see no reason why it should be mentioned in this article at all. As no sources have been identified after the need was identified, we seem to be done with this. --Ronz (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I am editor of this article, N2e, and I responded to the substance - it doesn't fit b/c we don't have a section for companies funded through crowdsourcing because the article would balloon crazily; this is about crowdfunding, not companies that have been crowdfunded. It would be like listing all the companies that have had an IPO at the initial public offering article. Jytdog (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Okay, let's start over. I guess I asked my question uncarefully and unclearly. My fault. I'm not at all suggesting that Ethereum, or any of that particular prose in my earlier question, go into this article.

My attempt was only to say that there is a class of crowdfunding now being done, where the output of the crowdsale is ownership of a value token of some kind, rather than swag, equity, or charitably-intended crowdfunding.

The article, as it currently stands, has five sections for types of crowdfunding: Rewards-based, Equity, Debt-based, Litigation, and Donation-based. I really am not clear on where this (new? newer? more recent? nor sure) type off crowdsale, as a general type and not as a particular event for any one organization, fits in the article.

Ethereum is simply one real-world physical example of where such a sale of value tokens was done, and as I observe the crowdfunding literature, it was a reasonably notable example, since the organization raised some $18M or so. (just so I'm not misunderstood here: I am not suggesting that Ethereum be mentioned in this article)

I simply do not think that, as the article currently stands, this sort of a sale of a "value token"—a token that while it may tank and become worthless, might also grow in value rapidly and make the crowdfunders merely speculative investors in the results of a development project, but in a non-equity sort of way—is covered in this article on crowdfunding.

It does not seem to fit in the "type" of "equity", as it is not equity in any traditional or legal sense of that term. And I'm not seeing it as a standard "rewards-based", as the reward implies something of value, even if the value is small. But YMMV. I'm just trying to find where this type of crowdfunding fits. Really; that's all. N2e (talk) 11:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I see your question now! To have general discussion of this class, we would need sources that discuss it generally; those sources would define and shape the content. I agree it would be interesting! Jytdog (talk) 22:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to see what I was trying to get at as a discussion for this Talk page. I'm a bit short on time right now, but I can think of a few I've read about in the various wiki article sources in the past few weeks; will try to get them added as a list here when I can. N2e (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Here are a few of these oddballs that seem to fit into a somewhat hybrid type or form. To be clear, I'm not making a hard argument that they are all the same type, but they do seem to me to be somewhat different than the normal "reward-based" or "equity" types of crowdfunding efforts, and don't fit very well in any of the five existing type categories in the article.
  • Ethereum (2014, c. $18.5M, this is somewhere in the top ten crowdfunds to date, based on some Wikipedia article on the topic that I saw a few weeks ago. I am not arguing that the sources I'm about to copy/paste in here support that particular statement. Just noting it for relevance to the discussion of the question of where this sort of stuff might fit.)[1][2][3][4] This crowdsale netted 31,529 bitcoins, worth approximately $18.5 million at the time, and in exchange 60,102,216 ether were later distributed to crowdsale participants.[5]refs and text copied from the Ethereum article
  • Augur decentralized, distributed prediction market software.[6]
  • Digix (a company? an organization?) with "digital gold tokens (DGX)"(from this forbes source, it sort of looks like there is some sort of value-token-as-reward-from-a-crowdsale for the Digix company itself, separate from the "DigixDAO" that is mentioned in the next bullet line, but I'm unclear on this.[1]
  • "DigixDAO" (with "DGD" tokens as rewards for the crowdfunding, bought, apparently, with Ether)[1]
  • "The DAO"[7] (2016, going on right now, ends in late May; seems to have a very large value right now, more than Ethereum itself, but this is obviously a primary source. However, I think it makes the point by simply being yet another example of this sort of hybrid class.)[8] I'm sure there will be many reliable sources on this once the sale completes, simply because it is so large. The "reward" once again is some sort of value token on a blockchain, but from what I can tell from that website, it is much closer to a sort of virtual equity position in this distributed organization than it is a ordinary cryptocurrency token, but on the other hand, it has some characteristics of a cryptocurrency too. So pretty confusing to me. But I do think it is a one more example of one of these kind of strange hybrids that have emerged recently.
There are no doubt many others with these somewhat oddball type of crowdfunding (or "crowdsales" or "token sales" or???) But these are the ones I had run into in recent weeks as I've been endeavoring to work on a number of different blockchain technology articles. N2e (talk) 04:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
  • And another source, this from the Wall Street Journal. Apparently describes what is the largest of these sort of token sales to date (and the exchange of these tokens is still yet underway): Chiefless Company Rakes In More Than $100 Million[9] [9]

I still don't know where in the article this type of crowdfund is described. Does not seem to fit in any of the existing categories. Would appreciate input from other editors. N2e (talk) 15:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Given no additional input, but general support for the idea that these sort of crowdsales aren't quite the same as any of the existing categories, I've added a subsection called "Software value token". Do others have a better name for it? N2e (talk) 11:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Three months on, that term (Software value token) seems to have worked adequately.
Having said that, I have not found any source that refers to them as "software value token". The term "value token" is seen quite often. Another name that might work, and is used in the most recent source added to the article (author: Williams, entitled "On Protocol Tokens and Securities Law"), is "protocol token." I'm not pushing for any change right now, but it could be that one of the latter two might be a better title for the subsection than "Software value token", the term used for the past several months. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes it is working...and needs more work. Thanks for this! Jytdog (talk) 04:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b c Aitken, Roger (2016-04-23). "Digital Gold 'Done Right' With DigixDAO Crypto-Trading On OpenLedger". Forbes. Retrieved 2016-04-28. 
  2. ^ "Ethereum Launches". Ethereum Blog. Retrieved 2016-03-21. 
  3. ^ "Ethereum Launches Long-Awaited Decentralized App Network". CoinDesk. 2015-03-15. Retrieved 2016-03-21. 
  4. ^ Schneider, Nathan (7 April 2014). "Code your own utopia: Meet Ethereum, bitcoin's most ambitious successor". Al Jazeera America. Al Jazeera Media Network. Retrieved 21 February 2016. 
  5. ^ "Crypto 2.0 Roundup: Block Chain Bloat, Ethereum Completes Presale and a Crypto Football Team". CoinDesk. Retrieved 2015-11-13. 
  6. ^ http://www.coindesk.com/augur-beta/
  7. ^ Allison, Ian (2016-04-30). "Ethereum reinvents companies with launch of The DAO". International Business Times. Retrieved 2016-05-01. 
  8. ^ https://daohub.org/index.html
  9. ^ a b Vigna, Paul (2016-05-16). "Chiefless Company Rakes In More Than $100 Million". Wall Street Journal (http://www.wsj.com/articles/chiefless-company-rakes-in-more-than-100-million-1463399393). 

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Crowdfunding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

There is far too much concentration in this article on equity schemes[edit]

Not even one mention of gofundme.com!

Sorry, but the article requires wholesale changes. Boscaswell talk 07:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

New spammish text[edit]

MrOllie tried to reduce the spam-like tone of the real estate section. I agree with him but it seems ForexAficionado wants to keep the puffery/advertising by introducing blog sources. Any comments? --NeilN talk to me 04:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC) --

Of course, I stand by my additions, as anyone who has true in-depth understanding of the topic at-hand would. Unlike, the previous poster, I only add contributions to WP in topics, areas where I fully and completely have in-depth, unassailable knowledge.
Some people can only hop around from one WP article to another to another, tens of thousands of times, across significantly broad and diverse topics without any actual in-depth knowledge of any - and remove, delete, slash, cut, and detract valuable information while drunk & delirious on the power ascribed to them with an administrative WP editor's account. These people are not creators and add nothing. They only kill.
Others - the true creators on WP - add valuable, useful knowledge and insight by imparting actual encyclopedic information to the benefit of readers. These people may make fewer edits, but these edits are of a significantly higher quality and made ONLY in areas where they possess actual real knowledge & understanding.
Needless to say, WP needs more of the 2nd and much much less of the first.
My additions are 100 % true, correct, uncontroversial, without-conflict, unbiased and written only with the intent to further "encyclopedic" knowledge of the topic on WP. Enough said. --ForexAficionado (talk) 22:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I have also reverted the insertion of this material. It has too many problems: overstated claims, promotional language, unsourced material and non-neutral sources. I left the recently applied improvement tag as it also applies to other less well written parts of this article that were already present. Drchriswilliams (talk) 22:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
It seems that a consensus is developing to remove the material as it was written. Also, ForexAficionado has vandalized NeilN's comments above (twice), signing his name to words he did not write. Please stop that. - MrOllie (talk) 22:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
@ForexAficionado: Every promoter has a "true in-depth understanding" of what they're promoting. We're not interested in having that "understanding" placed in the article (backed by sources also having a financial interest in that promotion) but would rather sum up what independent third party sources say about a subject. --NeilN talk to me 22:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
@NeilN: You are leveling inaccurate baseless accusations - very very dangerous both in life, and on WP. Your language above "spammy" "puffery" is so rude, demeaning and condescending. Am asking you to take a long look at your behaviour - You worsen WP with your comments & behaviour above. All you do is fight with everyone, but you add NOTHING to WP. ForexAficionado (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
@ForexAficionado: What inaccurate accusations have I been leveling? Other editors agree the text is promotional, anyone can see the some of the sources are not intellectually independent, and we have to guard against promotional editors every single day. --NeilN talk to me 23:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The changes by ForexAficionado, for example here, promote real estate crowd-funding and portals. The whole "Prior to the advent of the first online real-estate crowdfunding marketplaces...{things were terrible in the following ways)" and "Online real-estate crowdfunding portals finally allowed ..." are an "isn't this great!!!" approach that we don't use in WP. This is also all about how great online crowdfunding is, and says nothing (!) about the risks. "Unbiased" this is not. And the new sources are spammy. Jytdog (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


@NeilN: @Jytdog: @MrOllie: @Drchriswilliams:
When you guys come on to the various thousands of WP pages that you "edit" and make wholesale deletions on, do you ever give any consideration to whether what you are removing is true, accurate, factual and representative or not? Don't you think that these are important considerations? Do you keep the 5th Pillar of WP in mind when you rashly & recklessly slash the words & earnest input of others - many of whom are often far far more knowledgeable about the topics that you are editing than you are? Do you ever think about whether you are removing useful knowledge & info that might be important to readers seeking only to learn about a topic?
What is wrong with giving a little background colour and insight to these articles to in-fill and compliment the otherwise dry statistical data? At the end of the day, what harm is done by writing, for example: "Prior to the advent of in-home plumbing, people use to throw buckets of urine out of their windows." Is one to be accused of "promoting" plumbing for writing this?
Further to this, as long as one can not be accused of promoting any one particular person, product or company (which of course I've not done here), what can be wrong with highlighting the notable aspects of an entire industry? I suppose that if this is a crime, then I am guilty... but, THIS IS NOT A CRIME !!!!! THIS IS WHAT WP WAS CREATED FOR !!!!!
I really hope that you very very carefully consider whether you are advancing the encyclopedic knowledge of WP & furthering the knowledge of readers before you rush to remove entire swaths of other peoples' contributions, or whether you are just stroking your ego and exercising the administrative powers that your logins happen to have as SysOps or WP Adminstrators, drunk on the power that it affords you.
It's possible that you may believe that your deletions are well-intentioned (though sometimes I suspect they are not) the end result, I fear, is that you are in effect worsening WP... so much so that that other sources - QUORA, etc... may soon overtake WP simply in order to escape the tyranny of "administrators" like you. And it will be a shame.ForexAficionado (talk) 14:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


Short answer: Add well-sourced neutrally written content and you won't encounter much resistance. --NeilN talk to me 14:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


@NeilN: @Jytdog: @MrOllie: @Drchriswilliams:
Untrue b/c you guys all apply way more subjectivity in applying the guidelines (and remember - these are suggested guidelines only) than you think you do.ForexAficionado (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Crowdfunding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)