As many of you may know about me, I am huge proponent of crowd-based things. I am not a fan of Kickstarter or its connections to Amazon, but I consider it more of a "muttering under my breath while still putting up with it" sort of relationship.

However, crowdfunding in general-- and certainly Kickstarter in particular-- has become problematic in the economy. What should have been a method for those without resources to approach fields of innovation and inspiration has become yet another field spoiled by shills, gatekeepers, and corporate entities using the platform for pre-orders.

This is always with the cult-like chanting of "Kickstarter is not a store".

The response to this chant must be, "Then what is it?"

Either it actually is a store and is subject to standards and regulations that are therein implied, or it is some sort of investment type of platform and is subject to those regulations.

If it is something else entirely, then we need to define it and create a fair set of regulations and standards of practice for this new thing.

What it is not-- and cannot be-- is something that defies definition and thus is immune to all regulatory and standards-based efforts to protect "the crowd".

Now that I have seen outright false claims from campaign creators that have been seen as not violating the standards of the platform, yet other campaigns with only a hint of IP discrepancy shut down until further review and resolution, it is clear that the platforms are not actually invested in the crowd.

We-- the crowd-- need to take the reins and decide for ourselves what crowdfunding should be.

(Originally posted on FB)