Image: Creative Commons
Advertisement
Advertisement
Obviously, venture capitalists are looking for a return on investment. And that return on investment will be considerable if the Rift is as revolutionary as some people believe it to be. And the early Kickstarter backers won't see one cent of that $2 billion. Most of the blowback has come from Redditors who feel that Oculus getting snapped up by an ethics-challenged corporation like Facebook will compromise the product—not unlike fans of a punk band groaning when it gets signed to a major label. The criticism is ideological: indie vs. corporate. Fans worry that the product will get diluted with cheap hardware and other components to maximize profit. Put another way, redditors don't seem to be asking for a financial piece of that $2 billion pie. But maybe they should be demanding it."I did not chip in ten grand to seed a first investment round to build value for a Facebook acquisition," wrote Markus "Notch" Persson, the brains behind Minecraft, in a blog post announcing that he would stop developing for Oculus. The post went viral on Reddit, and helped spur the online backlash.So, expect the deal to reignite the debate about whether Kickstarter crowdfunding is an abusive investment model, at least in some cases. Is this caveat emptor in the truest sense of the phrase? And if 'buyer beware' is Kickstarter's operating principle, how does Oculus's $2 billion sale impact Kickstarter's technology projects going forward? Perhaps people will be less likely to fund cool tech projects. Maybe they'll demand a clearer framework, or even regulations, that guide any prospective sale to major corporations, which could feasibly distort the project before they even receive it.These are important questions that the Kickstarter community needs to consider. Sure, only a small percentage of Kickstarter projects will ever ascend to billion dollar valuations. But more and more people are launching their creative ideas on Kickstarter instead of taking the more difficult path of pitching to investors. And, indeed, venture capitalists are looking to Kickstarter as a way of measuring product viability, which is precisely what Andreesen Horowitz and Spark Capital did with Oculus Rift. They piggy-backed on the real early investment.The one big truth here is that without the early backers—the ones who threw their chips in because they loved Luckey's indie path—Oculus would probably be nothing right now. Many Redditors believe that should count for something. They wanted Luckey to be loyal to the original vision, but instead they feel stiffed. Luckey's thinking might just be, "Well, I can make it even better and get this to you faster now," which is its own type of loyalty. But, his aims are now as difficult to judge as Facebook's.The other truth is that when the venture capital began flowing in, the Kickstarter backers should have seen the writing on the wall. And that writing screamed, loudly, that Oculus ceased being truly independent a long time ago. When this happens, it's often only a matter of time before the high flying investors start demanding more input on the product's design and manufacture. This potential, more so than being able to cash out, pisses off those early Kickstarter backers, and it's a legitimate concern.If Kickstarter and its creators want to maintain a healthy, vibrant crowdfunding community, they would do well to learn from the Oculus-Facebook deal. Is it ethical or decent to use early backers as mere stepping stones in the path to a big pay day? Maybe it's time that Congress allows Kickstarter backers to be given some stock. It will better reward the early Kickstarter backers, not just the opportunistic venture capitalists, but also make these backers feel that their faith in the project idea, not to mention their collective input, is respected. And, who knows, this arrangement might just prevent the next promising startup from being eaten up by the social media borg.I did not chip in ten grand to seed a first investment round to build value for a Facebook acquisition.