Ah, ok, fair enough, so the initial “commitment” of money isn’t really much of a commitment, it is basically a collective signal of interest in kickstarting projects of a specific sort. And then, specific teams basically run a regular kickstarter “under that banner”, hoping to attract those specific investors. Plus, perhaps, some additional flexibility on when funds actually get transferred.
So it sounds to me like the simplest version is to make a website “parallel” to kickstarter, ie, where kickstarter investors can indicate how much $ they think they would invest in various projects (and where kickstarter projects can submit their kickstarters as supposedly meeting those requirements, and investors get notified, and have an easy interface to approve funds).
I did mean an actual commitment, that’s why I said it’s a technical problem in my original comment. I don’t imagine It’s a commitment you can’t walk back on at all, but there should be terms on that (say, a week/month notice, perhaps changing depending on the project), so potential developers* can be confidant the amount shown is the amount they’ll get (That’s really the important bit). Otherwise they have to guess whether people are still interested, and they have to get them to then actually pledge money, so it would end up not actually helping them that much—and if it doesn’t help the developer then it also doesn’t help the investors.
So what you suggested can work as a precursor without the commitment mechanism, but I think the commitment mechanism is important enough that it wouldn’t actually tell us much (so it wouldn’t really be an MVP).
*What’s the right word for the person/team that takes on a projects? executors? because they execute the project? Sounds a bit dark though, lol.
Ah, ok, fair enough, so the initial “commitment” of money isn’t really much of a commitment, it is basically a collective signal of interest in kickstarting projects of a specific sort. And then, specific teams basically run a regular kickstarter “under that banner”, hoping to attract those specific investors. Plus, perhaps, some additional flexibility on when funds actually get transferred.
So it sounds to me like the simplest version is to make a website “parallel” to kickstarter, ie, where kickstarter investors can indicate how much $ they think they would invest in various projects (and where kickstarter projects can submit their kickstarters as supposedly meeting those requirements, and investors get notified, and have an easy interface to approve funds).
I did mean an actual commitment, that’s why I said it’s a technical problem in my original comment. I don’t imagine It’s a commitment you can’t walk back on at all, but there should be terms on that (say, a week/month notice, perhaps changing depending on the project), so potential developers* can be confidant the amount shown is the amount they’ll get (That’s really the important bit). Otherwise they have to guess whether people are still interested, and they have to get them to then actually pledge money, so it would end up not actually helping them that much—and if it doesn’t help the developer then it also doesn’t help the investors.
So what you suggested can work as a precursor without the commitment mechanism, but I think the commitment mechanism is important enough that it wouldn’t actually tell us much (so it wouldn’t really be an MVP).
*What’s the right word for the person/team that takes on a projects? executors? because they execute the project? Sounds a bit dark though, lol.