Today, there appears to be an ever-expanding number of sponsors and markets for crowdfunding.
Since the Regulation A+ effective date last month, a number of websites have emerged that promote “Regulation A+ crowdfunding” contributing even further to the confusion in the market regarding “crowdfunding.”
Equity crowdfunding is a relatively new concept, and governmental regulation is struggling to keep pace with the rapidly changing crowdfunding landscape the world over.
Immediately after filing a lawsuit the defendant confessed that he spent monies on personal expenses even though he “raised more than $122,000 from 1,246 backers, most of whom pledged $75 or more in the hopes of getting the highly prized figurines” after he “launched a crowdfunding campaign to raise money from consumers purportedly to produce a board game.”
The crowdfunding world got a bit more crowded this week–from a legal perspective, at least–when the Federal Trade Commission entered the fray with its first crowdfunding case against a project creator and his allegedly deceptive Kickstarter® Campaign.
Today’s New York Times has a very interesting article that those involved with crowdfunding should read and consider.
When the verdict came down in the Eric Garner trial, the Internet exploded in support for his family, from organizing protests around the country to starting crowdfunding campaigns for his loved ones. There’s just one problem: in the two months following the indictment, the Garner family hasn’t received any money from these campaigns at all.
Marketplace lending surely had its day in the sun in 2014. Peer-to-peer lending, which now goes by the term marketplace lending, took a big step forward last year.
The Massachusetts Securities Division has recently joined a number of other states in adopting a “crowdfunding” exemption from securities registration requirements for certain offerings made within the Commonwealth, with the stated purpose of enabling startups and entrepreneurs to more easily use the Internet to raise capital.