In most crowdfunding platforms there is a goal of getting the most funding you possibly can with stretch goals and incentives. I’ve been studying about stake rewarding crowdfunding of late and I’m wondering what the community thinks of the following idea.
With normal crowdfunding, people can fund up to any amount they are comfortable with. Higher funding levels usually result in higher rewards. In for-stake crowdfunding platforms this would result in the higher investors receiving higher stake in the project. The highest level investors would essentially have the highest level of vote if the stake tokens allowed for voting.
What if you could “pledge” any amount, but the most you could invest is the average of all pledges. The goal of this style of campaign would still be to hit its goal but to level the playing field a bit and distribute the “ownership” over a broader range of players.
What’s the good, the bad and the ugly of this idea? How would those motivated by wanting to own the most game the system? How would those who wanted the keep the average low game the system? What would be some solutions to not allowing peeps to game the system? Would we want to dissuade the gamers.