•
•

[ META ] How does "flexible funding" even exist? (self.shittykickstarters)

SusanStark が 投稿

I mean, seriously.

Flexible funding screams SCAM SCAM SCAM.

全 7 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]DiaboliAdvocatus 2ポイント3ポイント  (4子コメント)

IndieGoGo gets its cut first and so far haven't been held legally responsible for the fraud they enable.

[–]SusanStark[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

Gosh. That's amazing. I shuld start a crowdfunding platform.

[–]rdrast 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

The other thing about the Flexible Funding scam, is that even if the scampaigner doesn't meet their goal, they still get the cash (and so does IGG).

[–]SusanStark[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Unbelievable that there still is people "funding" these projects.

[–]rdrast 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure that the displayed funding is entirely real. If it is, there are people that are literally funding thousands of dollars on many IGG total scam campaigns. You can look at a campaign and see the funders. Clicking on them brings up generally pages and pages of contributions.

I'm thinking there might be a paid for sock-puppet agency out there that "Funds" things just to make a scampaign look good to people with actual cash.

[–]arcesilaus 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

In a pleasant imaginary world without scammers, flexible funding is useful for charities & other projects which have a use for whatever money they happen to receive: a church may want $500,000 for a new roof, but it can find a use for lesser amounts falling short of that goal--$125,000 may buy them new pews, or $10,000 new hymnals, and so on. Not being restricted to the all-or-nothing fixed funding structure helps them raise funds in a more general way.

In, as I say, a pleasant imaginary scam-free world.

[–]_Xaver 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think you hit the nail on the head. Flexible funding comes from the charity-related campaigns, where NO perks are actually given to the backers in return. They just give money for others to help others. Maybe the backers names get engraved on the "this bench was possible through the help of" kind of thing, but that's it.

Now in IGGs case where backers actually "expect" to get something physical in return this financial model makes no sense at all.