[cstavish]

Accredited investors/VC (disclaimer: I am neither, but co-founded a VC-backed startup) are often wary of crowd funding because of the idea that with more investors, the more headaches that can occur with additional capital raises. Having a big cap table doesn't make company operations easier. I honestly don't know how valid those viewpoints are, but that's what I've heard.

[ericb]

I believe it. I also know that Realtors aren't too fond of For Sale By Owner houses. I suspect this comes down to a similar effect.

[seibelj]

> I also know that Realtors aren't too fond of For Sale By Owner houses

This scares agents because a wide-spread DIY real estate industry kills all of the middlemen (themselves)

[jethro_tell]

This is an interesting conversation to have here really.

'Never ask a barber if he thinks you need a haircut'

[Applejinx]

Yeah, it's kind of 'meta'.

Though the interesting thing is, Y Combinator is interested in basic income. That's effectively like crowd-seeding, which makes all the 'cut out the middleman' stuff more practical.

If you're expecting 'disruption' and embracing it, and you see disruption coming for your own livelihood, the sophisticated response is to try and find a place for yourself in the new situation, rather than stop things from changing at all. In that light, Y Combinator looking at ways to cut out SV incubators could be prescient.

It's like with me: I run a very functional small recording studio as part of my business, and it's well on the way to handling the live recording of traditional bands and their instrumentation. Yet I'm a lot more interested in finding unusual ways to support electronic genres (a strikingly different skillset).

[jethro_tell]

It's funny here too, because I would assume that crowd funding would put you on a more conservative path. I like the Idea of taking $100k seed money an building a company that turns a profit. Not one that IPO's and makes us fuck you money, just one that pays back my investors at better than market, and pays my employees.

But you're signing up for a lot of work, not a sprint, and that's kinda the antithesis to 'changing the world' without making a profit then going to IPO.

I don't want to gamble on something, I want to build something with a less sophisticated valuation model where the revenue plan is clear from the start.

[seibelj]

I don't see why this is an issue though, just promise quarterly updates and clearly state rights on future raises for existing investors. They can follow-on or not. All of these issues can be solved, it's just more excuses. It should be easier to have 100 investors who all agree on everything than 4 investors you have to baby and cajole and manage their whining because they feel entitled to personal service.

[lumost]

That assumes that the company proceeds through successive rounds with an upwards trajectory. If the company falters and takes a down round the initial investors may disagree with the direction or even sue.

If the company needs to be recapitalized or restructured under a time crunch, tracking down 100 loosely involved investors and getting them to sign the deal may not be feasible.

[sharemywin]

Probably would have been better to have arbitration instead of lawsuits written into the law. (to make it work not for investors)

[prostoalex]

The way AngelList (and I think FundersClub, too) handle it is to set up an LLC. The investors are then partners in an LLC, not direct shareholders.

[dragonwriter]

> The investors are then partners in an LLC

Pedantically, "members" not "partners"; an LLC is not a partnership.

[corford]

Seedrs also does it like this.