Crowfunding for éconologiques projects?

[Flytox]

My 2 cents as a qualified business manager: the gift of self with the best will in the world is not enough!

Yes Grelinette, I remember, I participated in your project in a constructive way while others did not believe it. And you had a lot of fingering, these are the human qualities you need.

The interesting point is that we can note that it was done "through participants in forum econology"but regardless of econology (or any structure that might have sponsored it) and it will not surprise anyone if I say that this is the only valid method to do this! Since you should never mix the roles.
It left the total control and the responsibility of the operations to one person: to the one who had the initiative (there is no mystery, and it would be positive and true in any type of project, if only to avoid any conflict of interest, crowfunding or not). Your project was the illustration that the will alone was not enough: it needed the ingredients that you quote and the expertise of several people you could trust. And it was necessary to wet the shirt.

In these cases only yes, it can work. It is better to have a healthy base to go then to a business model in order to generate profitability it's a pros business (better not to have to deal with autistic people)

Basically, with crowfunding, nothing changes, it's just " another way to finance a project ". That does not change: the principle of responsibility, nor the duty of result, nor the fact that the project must correspond to a need, nor to have to anticipate the expectations of the "potential market" nor to be in adequacy with it with objectives clear (neither of "redo marketing"to the dimension of his project ... nor .... etc).

The "business model" or "in order to generate profitability" is in the pure mind of the savage capitalist, the one who brings us directly to our loss, as brilliantly illustrated by Ahmed, Sensnosens etc ... in various posts.

We could also start from a model where crowfunding only serves to pass the "obligatory passages" of a development (various purchases of equipment, purchase of essential skills etc ...), but that each "donor" knows from the beginning that the goal is not to make money, take a patent etc ..., but to contribute to advance the schimblick on such "green" subject or of company which is close to his heart. Something good for the community at large and not for a handful of individuals who will do their job even with "very good intentions". Participate, go "in the right direction" and not expect a return of investment (in the financial sense).

No purchase of good conscience against return on investment, but true unselfish asset supports each one at his level.

PS It's just loose ideas, not seeing any kind of personal attack / criticism against anyone who has said or written different / conflicting things.

[Obamot]

Yes, Flytox, I understand you completely, and who could be "against" what you say in the first place?

My 2 cents as a qualified business manager: the gift of self with the best will in the world is not enough!

Yes Grelinette, I remember, I participated in your project in a constructive way while others did not believe it. And you had a lot of fingering, these are the human qualities you need.

The interesting point is that we can note that it was done "through participants in forum econology"but regardless of econology (or any structure that might have sponsored it) and it will not surprise anyone if I say that this is the only valid method to do this! Since you should never mix the roles.
It left the total control and the responsibility of the operations to one person: to the one who had the initiative (there is no mystery, and it would be positive and true in any type of project, if only to avoid any conflict of interest, crowfunding or not). Your project was the illustration that the will alone was not enough: it needed the ingredients that you quote and the expertise of several people you could trust. And it was necessary to wet the shirt.

In these cases only yes, it can work. It is better to have a healthy base to go then to a business model in order to generate profitability it's a pros business (better not to have to deal with autistic people)

Basically, with crowfunding, nothing changes, it's just " another way to finance a project ". That does not change: the principle of responsibility, nor the duty of result, nor the fact that the project must correspond to a need, nor to have to anticipate the expectations of the "potential market" nor to be in adequacy with it with objectives clear (neither of "redo marketing"to the dimension of his project ... nor .... etc).

The "business model" or "in order to generate profitability" is in the pure mind of the savage capitalist, the one who brings us directly to our loss, as brilliantly illustrated by Ahmed, Sensnosens etc ... in various posts.

I agree with the idea of ​​changing models, since I keep saying that the existing models are not suitable and viable in the long term. But it remains on the order of theoretical discussion. Like the UK, I would have been delighted for the popular initiative to pass, but I am convinced that the company is not ready (question of "motivation of the man at work", or "need of constraint"and of course responsibility and not"accountability"to name but a few). It is a long way from the lipstick of theory to practice.

In the meantime, you have to apply the models that work. I do not see how to do otherwise. And even that does not say that it works if there is not the necessary listening. But I understand the argument Flytox, and it makes me say it ...

I understand it all the better since I started as a self-made-man to create my own SME. Then it was only twenty years later, when I wanted to go further, that I went back to school. And that's where I was able to validate (or not) what I had developed by empiricism. And that's also where I realized that what I had patiently put so long to understand, could have been acquired in the classroom! But I do not regret it, because what I learned in the field is an asset for life. What we learn in class, sometimes between one ear and the other

We could also start from a model where crowfunding only serves to pass the "obligatory passages" of a development (various purchases of equipment, purchase of essential skills etc ...), but that each "donor" knows from the beginning that the goal is not to make money, to take a patent etc ... but to contribute to advance the schmiblick on such "green" subject or of company which is close to his heart.

We can call the model as we want, crowfunding, parallel banks or credit cards ...
For the moment money is the only model that puts everything flat and tries to make trade fair. All that is in the order of indebtedness is to be proscribed, no matter what it is called. Because why such and such could benefit and not another, what kind of right rather than such, should be the hands of workers or conversely have in his hands ex nihilo the reindeer of a power without sharing on a project ? If a successful project, how to share the fruits of this success or the losses? How to fix responsibilities and how to reward them if deserved? On the other hand, how could a situation that has already failed be used as a model for a renewal? There, in all good pragmatics and not wanting to offend anyone: I have a hard time (the facts and past experiences are stubborn.)
For me, if someone asked me what is the "ideal model", I would modestly say that there is not just one. But one of them may be my favorite, the one from Banque Wir (named after its currency) >>> you work by providing services or by carrying out work "for free" for a certain time (because you get paid in monkey money, the "wir") then only afterwards, you can go and spend your "wir" at d 'other partners of the same bank. Here is a form of risk-free credit, which I understand .... It is based on the "gift" (the gift of oneself) but at least in the end we are sure that no one will be rolled in the flour (the "wir "is convertible into Swiss francs). Strangely enough, I have never needed a "wir" account before. I must lack ambition!

Something good for the community at large and not for a handful of individuals who will do their job even with "very good intentions". Participate, go "in the right direction" and not expect a return of investment (in the financial sense).

Do you have an example? Do you want to compare to econology? ...Do not understand. Here we talk about this forum...in that case....

What is needed is a solid project. To meet solid needs. If this had been found, there would be no need for this thread!

No purchase of good conscience against return on investment, but true unselfish asset supports each one at his level.

100% agree if the odds are the same for everyone.
Already there, there is a heavy handicap of departure, already by the fact that there are differences in the formation.

PS It's just loose ideas, not seeing any kind of personal attack / criticism against anyone who has said or written different / conflicting things.

Idem....

Well ... well .... when digging to see what it would be possible to do. I think we need to build on things that already exist and have proven themselves. Innovation is good, but why spend years digging to reach the same conclusions as others who have already lost those years! For me it's clear, I believe in savings and not credit.

Apart from the Banque Wir, there is the principle of spinning-top savings, as in South-East Asia or among the Bamilékés, or even the tontines of Benin in Africa ... Each month, each puts an agreed amount in the pot. common, and once a year he collects all the pot paid by the other co-investors (and so on each in turn). There may be variations or for example the "banker" passes his turn, he will therefore save two years. Another variant can be a retrocession of part of the profits earned (thanks to the success of a small project) and which will be paid into the common pot (the principle of the universal dividend in a way). There yes, it's fair, compared to crowfunding with the plan to scramble to obtain a result, it is medium-medium ...

In terms of financial autonomy (if so much solidarity?), There is anyway no worse enemy than to become the enemy of oneself.

[chatelot16]

Crowdfunding is not a new social model! it's just another way of financing, but with exactly the same constraints as the others: it needs a precise project perfectly encrypted ... it is not suitable for the beginning of a study where the precise quantification is necessarily impossible since this is not studied yet!

my idea of ​​a variable capital company designed to pay in action the study participants is really a new model: a new version of capitalism giving a value to the work comparable to the financial investment

in a classic project the creator of the project works without income for a while before reaching a level sufficiently precise to be presentable to financial investors whether bank or crowdfunding ... in my idea a large number of people will be able to share the design work, and when the project will work it will be co-owner of the result and will be entitled to the dividend ... it avoids the problem of the current system or only the financial investor have the dividends as if they were the only ones to build the company

capitalism is not completely bad it's just not finished ... it stayed at another time ...

find money to pay a trainee future engineer does not guarantee the success of a project, the future engineer has no experience and is only one person, can not do everything at once. .. to involve a large number of people on a part-time basis makes it possible to bring together diverse skills

[lilian07]

Chatelot16 your system seems very promising but its weakness seems to lie in the extreme difficulty to quantify and follow this value work in a pyramid system and multi-skills and always difficult to quantify. I imagine you have consolidated this area
knowing that the coming generation is a generation of immediacy.

[Grelinette]

Hello,

Completely agree with Flytox's comment that crowdfunding can be considered in a purely generous approach, in a very "superficial" way, without expecting returns on investment, nor with a well-built business model, nor even waiting for success exceptional; the idea being simply to give a boost, to help a project leader or simply to have the idea to move forward in his approach.

In crowdfunding, there is certainly the idea of ​​financing, but also to say "I like this project, this idea, this approach ... and I encourage you to continue", even if we have doubts about its viability and success.

The donation is all the more secondary because it can be derisory (5,10, 20 € ... it is the number of gifts that is the most important), and its vocation is first of all to motivate and encourage, then to help with financing.

Crowdfunding is popular patronageit can be completely selfless financially, and potentially profitable for contributors. (We also say that the first contributors to start a crowdfunding are the people of the close circle: friends, families, who do not ask for accounts)

It is also a good motivation engine: when you launch a crowdfunding campaign, you create a network of support, a debate, exchanges; on econology this can also be done on aids and technical advice by contributors interested and competent on the subject.

To return to Obamot's comment, I have some disagreements with his remarks:

The interesting point is that we can note that it was done "through participants in the forum econology "but regardless of econology (or any structure that might have sponsored it) and it will not surprise anyone if I say that it is the only valid method to do this! Since you must never mix roles.

I would have appreciated being able to stay on econology, in particular for crowdfunding. On the other hand, I did not have the knowledge to sort out the technical information given which made me make mistakes, hence my remark in the previous comment: "constitute small teams by themes to carry out a project well and take appropriate decisions and making choices ", but that takes time.

There may be a "participatory" method to imagine and put in place to move forward by validating each step one after the other (technical choices, purchases, ...): for example the list of solutions are proposed on a table (doodle), then a validation by vote of each of the participants, contributors or not, it is to be defined.

It is better to have a healthy base to go then to a business model in order to release profitability it is a matter of pros better not to have to deal with autistic people).

Certainly the turning point was when the engineering school came into the loop, but with a lot of disadvantages!
The first being that their vision of the project was much too technical in relation to the context of the project: a priori the average user of a carriage with auxiliary power is not an engineer who has his smartphone or his pc at hand for modify the parameters. I asked for more simplicity as they were still considering more sophistication.
I think it was a "mistake" especially since the teachers asked the student not to forget the commercial side of the project (business), and to always put amounts in front of each gesture or minutes spent on the project.

Moreover, all their interventions had to be encrypted and valued (there are besides invoices made from one service to another of the school): when 1 hour was spent on the project, by a teacher of the school or by a technician for example for the machining of a part, this gave rise to a valuation at the market rate. Finally, in the virtual financial evaluation of the project, the amounts that were calculated by the student and validated by the teachers have reached dizzying heights!
From memory, the teachers told me that for a company, this project would have required a budget for engineering more 50000 €!

Basically, with crowfunding, nothing changes, it's just "another way to finance a project"

This is a debate, but precisely for some projects, especially the modest projects, to which the crowfunding should move, it is to disconnect from the valuation aspect of the know-how, financing at the market rate, return on investment, market suitability, etc.

There is also an important prior choice to make for a possible project financed on econology, define the continuation of the project :
- allow everyone to reproduce it for free (free access to technical docs, open-source)
- consider marketing the products / know-how / technical documents developed in the project
- filing a patent (it is ambitious and contradictory because a patent is developing in the greatest secrecy: difficult to ask for funding and say that you can not reveal anything because it is for patent!).
- No more, it was just to please the project leader to realize his idea!
(and incidentally participate in a debate that has a purpose other than simply exchanging ideas on a theme)
- ...

In short, in conclusion, we can continue to debate the philosophical and commercial aspects of crowfunding, but not being an engineer, so neither trained nor accustomed to anticipatory approaches, I would be of the opinion to make a concrete test on a modest project. ..
(I have ideas in stock if you want! )

[lilian07]

Completely agree with you Grelinette ..... I found in your writings the problems that I had with the PhD students in the development of a certain project ... they do not manage to have a simple idea because finally the simple idea for the application is often dictated at the time of the implementation ... The theoretical field is complementary of the practice but it lacks an interface (often the designer) and it is in this field that the ecological Crowfounding can be a financial aid to the interface theory / practice with the designer in the center ....

[chatelot16]

crowdfunding is a means of financing, not a means of project management

when trainee engineering students are placed at the beginning of a project they are not well equipped to organize the entire project if the project launcher can not do it alone

a coffee shop style step on a forum has a certain usefulness for dealing with problems with more diverse points of view than the trainee engineering student who has to do his job in a limited time and with the heavy constraint of being noticed ... which explains the simple reason why it can be complicated, because complicated it makes a nice report of stage and that too simple it is effective for the user but it makes a report of empty stage (for those who forget that the simplicity is the supreme quality)

I voluntarily distort the quote attributed to leonard de vinci: simplicity is the supreme sophistication because the word sophistication is doubtful ... sophisticated is not a quality ... I think this sophisticated is a lack of translation

after the coffee step of the trade it is necessary a step more serious or it is necessary to do heavier work that one can not ask in a completely volonteer way: it is thus necessary to do it of more confidential way on a site which is not accessible to everyone and then decide between those who have actively participated in what has to be put in public or not

even when one is motivated for a completely collaborative project or everything will be published it is not necessary to publish everything from the beginning ... it is not necessary to publish immediately what could repel the new participants ... and even worse to publish what could more late push back the customers

there is also another reason to remain confidential: in some phase of study it is useful to use documents whose reproduction is prohibited ... we can not put them on a forum public on pain of getting into trouble ... we can put them on a secure site accessible only to associates

a site with big flow like a big one forum cost can be expensive ... but accommodation for low attendance that is sufficient for a confidential site between partner costs a ridiculous price

So I think it's up to the creator of a project to make his own site and manage it according to his needs ... put on the forum econology what is desirable to put in public is a good solution to gather in the same place the different ecological project

what is sad is when projects use econology only to advertise and never write anything informative ... like energiestro ... it makes think that the project is not ecological at all but just vacuum cleaner galore

[Grelinette]

Hello chatelot,

there are several points that make me react in your comment:

what is sad is when projects use econology only to advertise and never write anything informative ... like energiestro ... it makes think that the project is not ecological at all but just vacuum cleaner galore

It's probably not at all productive or instructive, but the goal of a forum is the exchange of ideas. In this respect even the far-fetched and nebulous projects such as Rar-energia, cold fusion of Andrea Rossi, energiestro and others are interesting because they make it possible to recall again and again the basics of science, but above all generate a very positive flow for the site (*) : we all know (or almost) that projects on over-unity, perpetual motion and other esoteric research are doomed to failure ...
These debates arouse passions, patience, and scientific reminders, and fortunately the specialists intervene quickly to point the finger at the point where the reasoning of the wearer goes off the road or to report the grotesque scam. (Note, however, that some wacky projects are not so simple to debunk and twist!).

(*) Christophe, it would be very interesting to have stats according to the topics discussed on econology: number of views / comments, length of the debate, ... a kind of Hit Parade in sum .
Do you feel like making a small computer mill that counts all this and we expose it dashboard way? ...

crowdfunding is a means of financing, not a means of project management

And why not? This is a new iconoclastic approach that runs counter to conventions that are often based on individualism. It's like Open Source: Making software development and modification to everyone and making it free and free is a concept that seemed unfeasible and has now been successful.

For now, crowdfunding is only about raising funds, moreover there are other organizations to establish business plans, forecasts, technical advice, etc.
Why not try to combine all these steps in the same participatory process?

even when one is motivated for a completely collaborative project or everything will be published it is not necessary to publish everything from the beginning ... it is not necessary to publish immediately what could repel the new participants ... and even worse to publish what could more late push back the customers

How would “publishing everything” scare the participants?
Certainly we must structure the debate and frame it well, or even split it into several parts:
- "Debate open to all"
- "Validated technical and financial steps"
- "Technical and financial steps completed"
- "Points that require crowdfunding"

The idea is to encourage everyone to participate in the debate, then explain why this solution was chosen, and finally propose to participate in the financing of the stage: the more participants there are, the more potential contributors there will be. !

I think we do not see crowdfunding the same way:

it seems to me that you are considering it for the realization of large-scale projects, with strong technical added value, requiring considerable funds, and allowing to hope for financial spin-offs (design of a marketable product, financing of a patent , etc.),

For my part, it is more a popular approach to help a carrier on a small project for which he does not have all the technical skills, nor the budget to finance the first purchases.

We should see on the big crowdfunding sites which projects have the most success (number of donors, amount,% of success (https://fr.ulule.com/hall-of-fame/): Financing the purchase of a tool for a craftsman is not the same as financing the construction of a wind turbine for a village!

[Obamot]

Quite, crowfunding is NOT manage a project...

In short, in conclusion, we can continue to debate the philosophical and commercial aspects of crowfunding

All that follows is precisely philosophy. It is commendable to do, especially when it is with the dough of others!

But I will not go out, so here are some points:

Hello,

Completely agree with Flytox's comment that crowdfunding can be considered in a purely generous approach, in a very "superficial" way, without expecting returns on investment, nor with a well-built business model, nor even waiting for success exceptional; the idea being simply to give a boost, to help a project leader or simply to have the idea to move forward in his approach.

In crowdfunding, there is certainly the idea of ​​financing, but also to say "I like this project, this idea, this approach ... and I encourage you to continue", even if we have doubts about its viability and success.

The donation is all the more secondary because it can be derisory (5,10, 20 € ... it is the number of gifts that is the most important), and its vocation is first of all to motivate and encourage, then to help with financing.

Crowdfunding is popular patronageit can be completely selfless financially, and potentially profitable for contributors. (It is also said that the first contributors to start a crowdfunding are the people of the near entourage: friends, families, who do not ask for accounts) It is also a good motivation engine: when you launch a crowdfunding campaign, you create a network of supports, a debate, exchanges;

It defends itself, but the awakenings can be very difficult .... The facts are stubborn.

And still it is necessary to bet on the good horse. And why this or that horse rather than another?

And especially not to have as base a winged horse which already beats of the wing ...

The interesting point is that we can note that it was done "through participants in the forum econology "but regardless of econology (or any structure that might have sponsored it) and it will not surprise anyone if I say that it is the only valid method to do this! Since you must never mix roles.

I would have appreciated being able to stay on econology, in particular for crowdfunding. On the other hand, I did not have the knowledge to sort out the technical information given which made me make mistakes, hence my remark in the previous comment: "constitute small teams by themes to carry out a project well and take appropriate decisions and making choices ", but that takes time.

There may be a "participatory" method to imagine and put in place to move forward by validating each step one after the other (technical choices, purchases, ...): for example the list of solutions are proposed on a table (doodle), then a validation by vote of each of the participants, contributors or not, it is to be defined.

Contradictory in what! Yes, to vote certainly, it takes not only votes, but who says vote, says elections. Who says elections says candidates, who says candidates says nominations, etc ... etc ... In short we realize that even when we want to be « popular We begin by wanting to remake the world and then we realize at the end, that we have fallen back on the existing

It is better to have a healthy base to go then to a business model in order to release profitability it is a matter of pros better not to have to deal with autistic people).

Certainly the turning point was when the engineering school came into the loop, but with a lot of disadvantages!
The first being that their vision of the project was much too technical in relation to the context of the project: a priori the average user of a carriage with auxiliary power is not an engineer who has his smartphone or his pc at hand for modify the parameters. I asked for more simplicity as they were still considering more sophistication.
I think it was a "mistake" especially since the teachers asked the student not to forget the commercial side of the project (business), and to always put amounts in front of each gesture or minutes spent on the project.

Moreover, all their interventions had to be encrypted and valued (there are besides invoices made from one service to another of the school): when 1 hour was spent on the project, by a teacher of the school or by a technician for example for the machining of a part, this gave rise to a valuation at the market rate. Finally, in the virtual financial evaluation of the project, the amounts that were calculated by the student and validated by the teachers have reached dizzying heights!
From memory, the teachers told me that for a company, this project would have required a budget for engineering more 50000 €!

This is called: "to have been confronted with the existing"

Basically, with crowfunding, nothing changes, it's just "another way to finance a project"

This is a debate, but precisely for some projects, especially the modest projects, to which the crowfunding should move, it is to disconnect from the valuation aspect of the know-how, financing at the market rate, return on investment, market suitability, etc.

Why "should", to escape reality? There is a time for"should" it's the "homework"in the distant days of school. In an adult life (real life what) we behave like grown-ups .... We look for lasting solutions so fair. And from there, we are de facto confronted with "the existing", who, if you want to be altruistic, starts by thinking of others ... and not by his little ego (whether we like it or not, it comes down to that. And I'm not targeting anyone in particular.) Or, he don't just say "should"we must propose a model (community and fair) that would replace"the existing", which would be unanimous and which would hold water.

Besides, it's a long way and equto start as equiTable ...

There is also an important prior choice to make for a possible project financed on econology, define the continuation of the project :
- allow everyone to reproduce it for free (free access to technical docs, open-source)
- consider marketing the products / know-how / technical documents developed in the project
- filing a patent (it is ambitious and contradictory because a patent is developing in the greatest secrecy: difficult to ask for funding and say that you can not reveal anything because it is for patent!).
- No more, it was just to please the project leader to realize his idea!
(and incidentally participate in a debate that has a purpose other than simply exchanging ideas on a theme)
- ....

Before defining the rest, we must define the project and how the manageChatelot is right here. Otherwise it's called putting the cart before the horse, for now there is nothing concrete.

Each project will bring specific requirements. According to the title of the thread, there is no question of a patent, but to take back from the existing forgotten, and by definition that had not already necessarily convinced:

make econological machinery projects that have potential but have fallen into oblivion ...

Yes but who would manage-it? Christophe?

► View Text

[...] Chatelot? [...] Grelinette? [...] Lilian? etc.

[Did67]

A shame for a retiree: I'm on the fluff!

It seems to me that the debate boils down to the nature of the funds that the forumput in the case:

- is it a donation, to the end of the day, to support research, the development of an idea that we find great or in which we believe or which we think has the merit of existing ... Or even encourage a "researcher" (a dreamer?) ... Or an opportunist ???

- is it an “investment” to help a project that we want to be profitable, that it “brings back” (to the bearer in the anointing, possibly to oneself); crowdfunding can then be a substitute for a bank, just that we finance something that goes outside the usual spectrum of fundable objects ... But we already need to know a little to assess the "feasibility", the chances of success marketing, etc ...

Both can aim to "drain funds" from a multitude of "lambdas" ...

In the ambiguity, we can stay between the two ... We will see ... With disappointments for those who thought of "investing"!