What in the current investment model makes it natural bullshit

High entry threshold and bureaucrats

Well, seriously, the investment model currently working is not so bad: it works, in some places it’s good, but in the last few it has become outdated and has become just hellishly clumsy. More precisely - by and large it’s all right with her: we have business angels, and accelerators, and business incubators and venture funds of different sizes, and even investment banks - and all this more or less works well, but there are 2 important points that create problems in the architecture of the model.

The hardest part is to pass the entry threshold.(up to a million dollars), where 90% of normal projects fall off. The second most difficult is to do the sowing later (where very large marketing resources are needed). The bureaucrats in this model have advantages, and big ones. And as we know from the history of management (and not only), where there is such a model, the appearance of a flexible decentralized system that works first with the “long tail” of projects and then with the main things is immediately logical.

Well, to the heap - in our country now there is such a situation when everyone already understood that it was time to tear your ass off the chair and do real things, rather than cut money. People are willing to support good things. This is only being outlined, but it is already evident that any thing that leads to a concrete, even simple result, is perceived well.

Kickstarter

The first sign was Kickstarter, which allowed us to literally turn our eyes on game devs. Just think: it is unlikely that one of the big publishers decided to re-release Fallout 2 - after all, with all its legendaryness, it showed disgusting sales results - but Wasteland 2 will still live, and the project was successful even before the start.

But you can’t go to Kickstarter with something that requires more serious investments (like, “let's build a normal bank” or serious infrastructure like “let's release a new piece of iron and sell it everywhere”). There are no major players who could provide this; you cannot go there for the support of a large company. Another problem is that projects are not insured against failure, that is, you never know whether something concrete where you gave 10 bucks will be successful. But that's 10 bucks, right? Burn out - and to hell with it, you still have a lot of pieces of paper left.

After analyzing this situation, at some point I decided to create a service that fully utilizes the new model of the economy, which is characteristic of, no matter how pathos it sounds, our new information society. The beauty is that thanks to my work in the exchange and banking segments, I clearly understood the whole bureaucracy (and I was sick of its surpluses) - and at the same time I knew that there are a lot of people with money (often big money) who are just waiting for the opportunity to invest in something worthwhile, not just another padlock on paper.

So, the future ecosystem for projects should have the following qualities:

• It should be possible to attract large investments . This is really important for many iron development projects, business with a long-term payback, scientific projects and other things that do not have a goal like "to collect money quickly and withdraw, until no one understands anything."
• There should be a system for evaluating projects before investing , that is, some input threshold that eliminates inadequate so that the system does not turn into a bunch of losers. We need to select only good projects that will help to do something important and necessary. And the selection should be done not by one person with developed intuition, but by a number of experts who are ready to bring rational and personal arguments. By the way, this, in particular, means that the road will be open to projects without special investment attractiveness, but interesting in terms of progress - only they will note that "money is not coming soon."
• Two types of investors are needed: large companies attracted by the IPO analogue , as well as many microinvestors working on a crowdfunding basis. More specifically: if, for example, you make a piece of iron, then there will be one company that gets 20% of the shares (and builds at its factory) and N people who receive shares at a fraction of the interest for their small contributions. Attracting large investors opens the way to great finances, attracting many people - gives them very big bonuses to them personally - and immediately a quick start for the project. My practice shows that 650 shareholders are able to tell 150 thousand people about the project per day, thanks to social networks. This factor is one of the most important in the new model in general.

Such an ecosystem also has new risks: for example, if something does not take off from the first couple of projects, it will affect everything else due to the same social effect. Therefore, the first selection will have to be done somewhat tough.

We have already received financing from one venture fund, and in the first half of 2013 we launch the Smartmarket. While there are a lot of legal difficulties, but this is all solved. I really want this to be a platform where those whose project due to courage, some kind of madness and fear of unusual new things could not be accepted by the “dinosaurs” - and where there really will be something that is even a little but will change the world.

If you are interested, I can tell you in detail why it seems to me that microinvestment is generally the next generation of the economy of our country, and how it can be used specifically for your crazy idea. But this is a bit later.

And now, please tell us what exactly can prevent you from getting investments in your project, or what prevents you from investing in someone else's projects.

Please write in general any arguments starting from “I don’t trust all those who use foreign words in speech” or “I don’t understand where to go with money so that they don’t throw me” to “I didn’t think it was possible at all”. Thanks in advance.