Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by swamp40 | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

swamp40

20% refunds (promised, not yet delivered).

And the company's going to stay in business.

How embarrassing.

View on HN

That's the beauty of Kickstarter. No downside for those who get the money, very limited upside for those who pledge.

Why are you singling out Kickstater? You statement holds true for any form of investment.

There seem to be a misconception what Kickstarter is. Their FAQ is clearly explains it is funding. I'm sure if everyone who backs a project would read it, there wouldn't be so many complaints.

Because in a standard investment there is a potential for a huge upside, the product is a huge success and and you make a bunch of money. Kickstarter the upside is capped at getting your reward.

I've read their FAQ and I won't participate in Kickstarter. I consider it a bad deal. If I see something on Kickstarter I want, I'll wait until it gets retail release and buy it for probably the same amount and have no risk. And if it doesn't get a retail release I'll live without it.

That is completely situational. They are what they are. If you ignore the contract/FAQ it is only your fault. You seem to do so, which is great, but slandering is not honest.

Kickstarter is not a form of investment. It is at it's base a donation with some purchase aspects for some the projects.

With an investment you get the upside for the risk as well as the downside.

If you agree that the language you are speaking is English we all speak, then it is certainly a form investment or funding.

You are making an assumption that investment guarantees some stake, it doesn't. You only get what is in the contract.

'Investment' generally has connotations of owning a financial asset, and potential future profit-sharing. It's a legal term of art, and that's why Kickstarter makes it very clear in the terms of service that backers are not investors - otherwise Kickstarter would become subject to a lot of complex regulation which would wreck their business model.

Casually, you might say that you 'invest' in a new computer that you bought at the computer store (because you plan to make money by using it). But legally, a purchase and investment are two very different things.

It is technically a donation:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/chancebarnett/2013/09/09/donatio...

...when I first heard about it, it was frankly obvious that kickstarter was a devious way around SEC investment rules regarding the category of "accredited investor". Nothing since then has suggested to me otherwise. But that's how the scam works. It's a donation that feels like an investment.

If people are actually stupid enough to donate money thinking they are "investing" that merely shows the success of the con.

I wish people stop saying that. Backers are not investors.They are essentially pre-ordering a product,whatever it is. Today the language is vague enough to confuse the "bakers", Kickstarter knows it. What's even more amazing is that no backer has successfully sued Kickstarter for a failed project yet, because one could clearly get the money lost from them directly. They are a store, period.

That is your impression. You seem to be relying on word of mouth i.e. the general public representation of what Kickstarter is. Unfortunately that is not accurate.

Simply reading FAQ will shows they are not a store, quoting:

At the same time, backers must understand that Kickstarter is not a store. When you back a project, you’re helping to create something new — not ordering something that already exists.

you might think they are( a store ), but that doesn't make it true.

You talk about investment, I ask you where is the Equity? it isn't an investment.

It doesn't matter what Kickstarter FAQ says, a judge need to decide once and for all what Kickstarter really is and how can its customers defend themself against fraud and scams like Triggertrap. "I was an idiot who didn't know what he is doing" is never an excuse when you take other people's money and you promise them something.

It actually looks as if there have been some changes to the Kickstarter TOS. For a long time, it seemed to imply that you needed to return the money if you didn't deliver the rewards. (However unrealistic that was--blood from stone and all that.)

Now it seems to explicitly refer to returning remaining funds. ("they offer to return any remaining funds to backers who have not received their reward (in proportion to the amounts pledged), or else explain how those funds will be used to complete the project in some alternate form.)"

Kickstarter has been tiptoeing this line forever between Not-a-store and Not-giving-people-what-they-paid-for-is-a-very-bad-thing.

At the time the triggertrap ada completed funding the TOS said full refunds if the product isn't delivered -- according to comments on the kickstarter page.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/triggertrap/triggertrap...

Interesting. I thought the terms had changed. While I'm sure not everyone will agree, the new ones seem to make a lot more sense. After all, if you had the money why would you run a Kickstarter (other than for the marketing/feeling out the market) if you were really, truly, personally on the hook to give it all back no matter what? And, if you didn't have the money before the Kickstarter, there's pretty much an inherent risk that things are going to go south as in this case.

I understand Kickstarter wanting to keep the pressure on project creators while minimizing the perceived risk in the eyes of funders, but the current TOS seems to mirror the reality much better than the old one. (Threats of lawsuits and so forth notwithstanding.)

EDIT: Ah. This seems to have happened last fall: http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/09/kickstarter-tries-to...

The fact that nobody has sued them over the (many, many) failed projects suggests that people in general understand the risk involved with Kickstarter much better than you seem to. It is all about backing speculative projects which may fail. I don't understand how you can know anything about Kickstarter and not be aware of that.

It may be true that no one has sued Kickstarter, but people -- including the State of Washington -- have sued failed Kickstarter projects.

If no one has sued Kickstarter, that may mean that Kickstarters has been successful at direct responsibility to projects rather than Kickstarter itself.

Look at their webpage: http://triggertrap.com/

"Compared to a traditional remote trigger (...) it represents superb value for money - Trusted Reviews"

How about they add something like: "Took 500,000 from 'customers' and gave them nothing in return"

At least this wouldnt be misleading

Reply on news.ycombinator.com