Keeping track of investors and paying them dividends isn’t even close to the most expensive part of fundraising. This is akin to starting a car company differentiated solely by the material of the muffler.
Even for large companies: say we want to do my crazy invest at the team level idea: I don't really agree it would be simple to operationalize all of that money flow, and I do actually think having a blockchain could help if that is your goal, which is a big if.
I'm not here to hard sell anyone on crypto, but I also am not comfortable with the wholesale dismissal of it either, so I'm definitely hoping a lot of people disagree with me and we can tease some of this stuff out.
Edit: Since we have the downvoters here, does anybody want to defend accredited investor laws? Here is some stimulus material - https://qz.com/431198/this-is-not-a-typo-only-3-of-americans...
These are unrelated. You can hold stocks, bonds and commodities in your own name. It’s inconvenient and carries no advantage over owning them in “street name”. But that isn’t an accredited/un-accredited difference.
I was just stating that the former is a form of discrimination to restrict opportunity and increase wealth disparity. The latter is just a preference. Both were being discussed in the parent comment.
Kickstarter brings some value (e.g. neat landing page, network effects etc.), but 8% is a lot to leave on the table.