Slashdot Mirror

Indiegogo and Rockethub offer the option (Indiegogo) or have a model (Rockethub) where you keep what you raise (minus a cut, of course). Kickstarter is of course all or nothing.

For example, Rockethub's terms of service are described in their FAQ, which says

"Reach your goal: 4% commission fee + 4% credit card handling fee
Don't reach your goal: 8% commission fee + 4% credit card handling fee"

Yes, Kickstarter is roughly an order of magnitude bigger (in terms of participation) than either Indiegogo or Rockethub, but an actual take is better than a zero take.

The requested $125k is about what it would cost to build and launch a cubesat, but a cubesat would only be in orbit for a couple months at most. So this is a very good return on investment if they can get some longer term use out of it.

Projects providing the necessary software to make online voting get ignored: http://www.rockethub.com/projects/20176-friction-free-democracy

Yes, sorry - I had added links after previewing in a separate tab, but ended up submitting the original.

So here we go:
KickStarter: http://www.kickstarter.com/
IndieGoGo: http://www.indiegogo.com/
RocketHub: http://www.rockethub.com/

Mythic: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/273246798/mythic-the-story-of-gods-and-men
Projektor: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1747147409/projektor-make-your-mobile-devices-larger-than-lif

KickStarter Mobile Phone App project: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/128239212/kickstarter-mobile-phone-app
GloSpex (original): http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1816244302/glospex
Go GloSpex (resubmit): http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1816244302/go-glospex

Double Fine adventure: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/66710809/double-fine-adventure
Pebble: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/597507018/pebble-e-paper-watch-for-iphone-and-android

Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/

Javascript timer with now-blank divs that once housed actual server-written content - view any project page source, look for "ksr_page_timer". The divs that follow once contained server-written data (e.g. "44 hours left") - which needn't have been removed for the javascript timer to work.

xkcd comic: http://xkcd.com/1055/

Quirky: http://www.quirky.com/

Note that the example projects mentioned were but a few. There's so many more that would stand out as examples of things where better screening, intervention, communication and combinations of the aforementioned would have been thoroughly welcome and easily serve as material that could cause a 'PR hit' than the subject matter of TFA.

I wouldn't worry so much about spam, but rather about frivolous projects.

To see what other models are like, go check out...
http://www.indiegogo.com/
http://rockethub.com/
http://www.pozible.com/
http://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/
http://invested.in/
http://fundry.com/
http://pledgie.com/
http://www.sponsume.com/
http://peerbackers.com/

Then after you're doing reading through the hundreds of projects that amount to little more than "give me money because... well, just because.", you'll probably be glad that KickStarter does some, albeit a very superficial, checking of projects.

Yes, KickStarter has its own problem projects that make it through the review process.. projektor (probably a scam), juicies (unrealistic funding vs rewards leading to a kid way in over his head), Googly Eyes (essentially selling an existing product for a premium).
But they do try, and they explicitly disallow 'good cause' type projects, which are often the "just give me money" type projects.

Nothing against 'good cause' projects when they really are for a good cause - people who need a prosthesis but can't afford one.. more power to then. But then there's the "I want to go on a trip to Europe"-types.

I'd be more afraid of that sort of thing hitting crowdtilt, than spam hitting it.

Also, for those who want a truly open alternative, set up a Wordpress site and go check out:
http://ignitiondeck.com/id/wordpress-crowdfunding/
http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/crowd-funding/

A couple of researchers in Sydney think they've got a model for searching the genoma much more efficiently. They're trying to fund their research and development with crowdsourcing: http://rockethub.com/projects/4065-a-gps-for-the-genome : "The PASTE project [is] based on a new number system we call Permutahedral Indexing - P.I. for short, an N-dimensional map that efficiently locates and interrelates complex datasets in the space of all possible data. P.I. does this efficiently even when the data has hundreds of independent dimensions and comes in petabytes and exabytes."
They don't seem to need much money in the scheme of things - I might just throw in $25.

As I joined the #SciFund Challenge late, I just posted up the project I had just talked about most recently with local teachers (STEMulate Learning) without prior experience in crowdfunding efforts. I focused my descriptions and even the project video (YouTube Video) on the technical aspects of the project and the simple long-term goal of encouraging students to focus on science, technology, engineering and math studies. I also aimed the proposal at full funding for a complete lab installation, as I would for any traditional grant request.

I have received a great deal of feedback from would-be supporters and followers of my #SciFund topic curation magazine (#SciFund at Scoop.It) that crowdfunded research needs to illustrate more obvious value and intermediate goals. Instead of identifying long-term goals for full funding, I should have focused on the immediate supercomputing support for childhood disease cures, researching cancer, finding clean water and discovering clean energy that would start immediately once a minimal $3,800 was raised for the intitial setup.

Short-term and understandable goals are far more effective in research crowdfunding efforts like the wonderful Roman DNA project that Kristina has already fully funded plus half again (Ancient Roman DNA), while those will immediate appeal like the magnificent Zombie Fish project Kelly has also fully funded with excess (Support Zombie Research!). These projects capture the interest of the public and have already been funded, while most of the remaining 47 projects are working more slowly towards their goals.

Traditional grantmaking supports research that is too costly for individual investors to expect to make a difference, too esoteric or exotic for layfolk to understand its value, or research that may be performed in order to disprove an existing established idea that might provide truly "groundbreaking" innovations at the cost of revising established human understanding. Crowdfunding research best supports smaller projects, including those that are either seen as "fun" or immediate in their results. The combination of these is a magnificent opportunity for synergistic top-down and bottom-up scientific inquiry.

If the founders decide to run a second round of the #SciFund Challenge (#SciFund at RocketHub), many of us will benefit from this initial "testing the waters" so it has been joyous to take part. For my own project, I would focus on the fun aspects of doing immediate global good starting with a small amount of initial funding, which is possible now but not obvious in the project aimed more towards traditional grantmaking venues. I believe many other researchers will use the experiences from pioneers of crowdfunded science to better design their own studies for the future. It is a glorious idea for the future of scientific endeavour, which will synergize with traditional grant-based research marvelously.

As I joined the #SciFund Challenge late, I just posted up the project I had just talked about most recently with local teachers (STEMulate Learning) without prior experience in crowdfunding efforts. I focused my descriptions and even the project video (YouTube Video) on the technical aspects of the project and the simple long-term goal of encouraging students to focus on science, technology, engineering and math studies. I also aimed the proposal at full funding for a complete lab installation, as I would for any traditional grant request.

I have received a great deal of feedback from would-be supporters and followers of my #SciFund topic curation magazine (#SciFund at Scoop.It) that crowdfunded research needs to illustrate more obvious value and intermediate goals. Instead of identifying long-term goals for full funding, I should have focused on the immediate supercomputing support for childhood disease cures, researching cancer, finding clean water and discovering clean energy that would start immediately once a minimal $3,800 was raised for the intitial setup.

Short-term and understandable goals are far more effective in research crowdfunding efforts like the wonderful Roman DNA project that Kristina has already fully funded plus half again (Ancient Roman DNA), while those will immediate appeal like the magnificent Zombie Fish project Kelly has also fully funded with excess (Support Zombie Research!). These projects capture the interest of the public and have already been funded, while most of the remaining 47 projects are working more slowly towards their goals.

Traditional grantmaking supports research that is too costly for individual investors to expect to make a difference, too esoteric or exotic for layfolk to understand its value, or research that may be performed in order to disprove an existing established idea that might provide truly "groundbreaking" innovations at the cost of revising established human understanding. Crowdfunding research best supports smaller projects, including those that are either seen as "fun" or immediate in their results. The combination of these is a magnificent opportunity for synergistic top-down and bottom-up scientific inquiry.

If the founders decide to run a second round of the #SciFund Challenge (#SciFund at RocketHub), many of us will benefit from this initial "testing the waters" so it has been joyous to take part. For my own project, I would focus on the fun aspects of doing immediate global good starting with a small amount of initial funding, which is possible now but not obvious in the project aimed more towards traditional grantmaking venues. I believe many other researchers will use the experiences from pioneers of crowdfunded science to better design their own studies for the future. It is a glorious idea for the future of scientific endeavour, which will synergize with traditional grant-based research marvelously.

As I joined the #SciFund Challenge late, I just posted up the project I had just talked about most recently with local teachers (STEMulate Learning) without prior experience in crowdfunding efforts. I focused my descriptions and even the project video (YouTube Video) on the technical aspects of the project and the simple long-term goal of encouraging students to focus on science, technology, engineering and math studies. I also aimed the proposal at full funding for a complete lab installation, as I would for any traditional grant request.

I have received a great deal of feedback from would-be supporters and followers of my #SciFund topic curation magazine (#SciFund at Scoop.It) that crowdfunded research needs to illustrate more obvious value and intermediate goals. Instead of identifying long-term goals for full funding, I should have focused on the immediate supercomputing support for childhood disease cures, researching cancer, finding clean water and discovering clean energy that would start immediately once a minimal $3,800 was raised for the intitial setup.

Short-term and understandable goals are far more effective in research crowdfunding efforts like the wonderful Roman DNA project that Kristina has already fully funded plus half again (Ancient Roman DNA), while those will immediate appeal like the magnificent Zombie Fish project Kelly has also fully funded with excess (Support Zombie Research!). These projects capture the interest of the public and have already been funded, while most of the remaining 47 projects are working more slowly towards their goals.

Traditional grantmaking supports research that is too costly for individual investors to expect to make a difference, too esoteric or exotic for layfolk to understand its value, or research that may be performed in order to disprove an existing established idea that might provide truly "groundbreaking" innovations at the cost of revising established human understanding. Crowdfunding research best supports smaller projects, including those that are either seen as "fun" or immediate in their results. The combination of these is a magnificent opportunity for synergistic top-down and bottom-up scientific inquiry.

If the founders decide to run a second round of the #SciFund Challenge (#SciFund at RocketHub), many of us will benefit from this initial "testing the waters" so it has been joyous to take part. For my own project, I would focus on the fun aspects of doing immediate global good starting with a small amount of initial funding, which is possible now but not obvious in the project aimed more towards traditional grantmaking venues. I believe many other researchers will use the experiences from pioneers of crowdfunded science to better design their own studies for the future. It is a glorious idea for the future of scientific endeavour, which will synergize with traditional grant-based research marvelously.

As I joined the #SciFund Challenge late, I just posted up the project I had just talked about most recently with local teachers (STEMulate Learning) without prior experience in crowdfunding efforts. I focused my descriptions and even the project video (YouTube Video) on the technical aspects of the project and the simple long-term goal of encouraging students to focus on science, technology, engineering and math studies. I also aimed the proposal at full funding for a complete lab installation, as I would for any traditional grant request.

I have received a great deal of feedback from would-be supporters and followers of my #SciFund topic curation magazine (#SciFund at Scoop.It) that crowdfunded research needs to illustrate more obvious value and intermediate goals. Instead of identifying long-term goals for full funding, I should have focused on the immediate supercomputing support for childhood disease cures, researching cancer, finding clean water and discovering clean energy that would start immediately once a minimal $3,800 was raised for the intitial setup.

Short-term and understandable goals are far more effective in research crowdfunding efforts like the wonderful Roman DNA project that Kristina has already fully funded plus half again (Ancient Roman DNA), while those will immediate appeal like the magnificent Zombie Fish project Kelly has also fully funded with excess (Support Zombie Research!). These projects capture the interest of the public and have already been funded, while most of the remaining 47 projects are working more slowly towards their goals.

Traditional grantmaking supports research that is too costly for individual investors to expect to make a difference, too esoteric or exotic for layfolk to understand its value, or research that may be performed in order to disprove an existing established idea that might provide truly "groundbreaking" innovations at the cost of revising established human understanding. Crowdfunding research best supports smaller projects, including those that are either seen as "fun" or immediate in their results. The combination of these is a magnificent opportunity for synergistic top-down and bottom-up scientific inquiry.

If the founders decide to run a second round of the #SciFund Challenge (#SciFund at RocketHub), many of us will benefit from this initial "testing the waters" so it has been joyous to take part. For my own project, I would focus on the fun aspects of doing immediate global good starting with a small amount of initial funding, which is possible now but not obvious in the project aimed more towards traditional grantmaking venues. I believe many other researchers will use the experiences from pioneers of crowdfunded science to better design their own studies for the future. It is a glorious idea for the future of scientific endeavour, which will synergize with traditional grant-based research marvelously.

If i could see my money would all help research efforts in the fields of ...innovative green power, genetic mutation ... health as well as many others i would donate $1000 - $10000... with all the rules and regulations involved as well as bureaucrats getting half the money, I'm not sure it would reach it's full potential.

Given how things work for #SciFund, we have an 8% overhead to rockethub and about a 2-5% for folk at universities (although this varies) since it goes through a different channel than government grants. And we have projects looking at greener power applications as well as problems of global good production. So, great! Sounds like a perfect match for you!

If i could see my money would all help research efforts in the fields of ...innovative green power, genetic mutation ... health as well as many others i would donate $1000 - $10000... with all the rules and regulations involved as well as bureaucrats getting half the money, I'm not sure it would reach it's full potential.

Given how things work for #SciFund, we have an 8% overhead to rockethub and about a 2-5% for folk at universities (although this varies) since it goes through a different channel than government grants. And we have projects looking at greener power applications as well as problems of global good production. So, great! Sounds like a perfect match for you!

If i could see my money would all help research efforts in the fields of ...innovative green power, genetic mutation ... health as well as many others i would donate $1000 - $10000... with all the rules and regulations involved as well as bureaucrats getting half the money, I'm not sure it would reach it's full potential.

Given how things work for #SciFund, we have an 8% overhead to rockethub and about a 2-5% for folk at universities (although this varies) since it goes through a different channel than government grants. And we have projects looking at greener power applications as well as problems of global good production. So, great! Sounds like a perfect match for you!

If i could see my money would all help research efforts in the fields of ...innovative green power, genetic mutation ... health as well as many others i would donate $1000 - $10000... with all the rules and regulations involved as well as bureaucrats getting half the money, I'm not sure it would reach it's full potential.

Given how things work for #SciFund, we have an 8% overhead to rockethub and about a 2-5% for folk at universities (although this varies) since it goes through a different channel than government grants. And we have projects looking at greener power applications as well as problems of global good production. So, great! Sounds like a perfect match for you!

I have been fascinated by the comments in this thread. And I realize perhaps I mis-stated the question. The tacit assumption seems to have been that this may be a potential replacement for NSF/NIH funding or otherwise that can completely support a research lab.

And maybe it can. But I agree with all the posters that the chances of crowdfunding as a complete replacement for more traditional funding sources are highly unlikely. As everyone has noted, #SciFund is targeting pieces of research programs rather than whole labs (although we do have some folk trying for a chunk of their salary). And perhaps it is no accident that the first time around, the disciplines and scientists that have been attracted to #SciFund are not ones who are trying to purchase or use multi-million dollar pieces of equipment.

So, perhaps the question should be, Crowdfunding for science - when and where can it be used successfully?

Because, really, the answer to the first question, can it succeed at all for any project, no matter the size, rests on folk like you. But what are its best uses? That's a bigger issue that I'd love to hear more thoughts about, as we're still grappling with it.

(FYI, we'll also be doing a formal analysis of all of the projects and their funding records at the end of the 45 day funding period - #SciFund runs through Dec 15th, so, we have pulled in $40K now, but we still have a month left to get more, if you want to contribute and help us figure out what projects are really capturing people's imagination when it comes to funding.)

Yup, this is indeed small for now. If you total up all of the projects and what we're shooting for, though, it's about $250K, so, not tiny. Although, to give you context, we actually told all of the scientists to start small as this has never been tried on this scale before. It's an experiment, really, to see if it can work at all. Phase 2 is scaling up.

It should be noted, though, that many projects are asking for amounts that are reasonable within their discipline. We have a lot of ecologists whose needs for running and analyzing experiments often fall in the $1-5K range, rather than hundreds of thousands of dollars. For example, I'm seeking ~$7K to fund two days of sampling in kelp forests in the California Channel Islands. It's not huge, but it's what is needed for the kind of data I collect.

Needs vary greatly between disciplines and projects.

As one of the co-founders of #SciFund, I'm curious, after you slashdotters go and look at the projects at http://scifund.rockethub.com and their videos and rewards, would YOU crowdfund these projects? (and if you would, then by all means, do so!) This is the first time we're trying this on any scale, and so have chosen to start with small projects that, if they don't get funded, won't set back anyone's research program. What we're really curious is if the science literate and science interested people like YOU would go over, see what scientists have up, and say "Yeah, I'll fund that."?

And if you want more background, check the articles our scientists are writing about this process.

Link Fail. Meant ExEn.