
Introducing Backer: crowd funding for features - steveklabnik
https://backer.app.net/
======
quadrangle
This is NOT a new idea. This is just a feature-focused threshold system the
same as using Kickstarter. There are also tons of feature focused sites.

Here's the exact same thing already:
[http://catincan.com/](http://catincan.com/) There's also tons of bounty-style
feature systems like
[http://www.freedomsponsors.org/](http://www.freedomsponsors.org/)

I could go on and on. There's no particular reason this variation is going to
fail, but it's not new. The only thing notable is the no-fee for Open Source.
The Bitcoin focus isn't even remarkable, because there's
[http://bitcoinstarter.com/](http://bitcoinstarter.com/)

Oh, and the idea-validation is already inherent to crowdfunding. Anyway, I
wish people didn't keep wheel reinventing all the time. At least recognize it.

------
iandanforth
I think this is really cool! I can see these campaigns dropping into one of
two buckets. 1. Funding to pay for development time and 2. Validating the
idea. I think it's up to the campaign runner to determine how much to ask for
for bucket 1 type campaigns, but it could be _immensely_ helpful for Backer to
offer clear guidance for the second.

For example, lets say I have an existing user base of 100,000 people, and I
normally charge $15 / m for my service, of which 5% of my users actually pay.
What is a sufficient contribution to validate the idea of a new feature for
the paid version? For the free version? Over time, finding the proper
heuristics/weightings for Backer users could be very very helpful.

------
thruflo
This looks excellent.

We've been crowdfunding an open feature roadmap on WikiHouse.cc and,
internally, have been very concerned to build credibility by shipping the
funded features before asking for more funds - especially because, with a
simple paypal setup, we've been getting paid in advance.

I can see the payment on delivery and project curation being very valuable
trust builders, if administered soundly / well governed.

------
MWil
I understand the appeal of a single page "corresponds to a single feature" but
is there a way to display the status of a full project?

Let's say I have UmbrellaApp, a website which offers a service. I create a
Backer page for a mobile app, and 4 more Backer pages for optional features
which I'd be interested in building into both the website and the mobile app
but I'd want to gauge interest individually before committing to development.

Can there be an UmbrellaApp page, not a Backer page, but which lists all the
possible configurations which Backer would enable (if successful) and their
real-time status?

~~~
dalton
My instinct is that trying to run multiple Backers at the same time might make
it harder for any one of them to succeed, and thus it might make sense to run
them serially.

We are certainly open to trying things like this out, and sharing the best
practices of what works best with the public.

~~~
MWil
I'd like to see it attempted (or am interested in being the guinea pig if need
be) of building almost an entire service the way I described. It works for the
project I'm thinking of because I work with the law and it's jurisdictional
and categorical. To devote finite resources to a different area of the law or
different jurisdiction might not be worth it if there is such demonstrable
demand to expand features within an area/jx already present. For example, I
could build a product for attorneys and law students in my home state that
focuses on a small area of law and never expand outside of that area/jx - if
those customers/clients are gracious enough that they can effectively block
any attempt to expand elsewhere, why wouldn't I reward them? Conversely, if
another area or jx can steal my attention with their efforts...

Sure, you could use surveys and contact forms but even if the amount you're
raising is not correlated to the development cost, you're awarding your most
valuable customers first - those that are willing to put their money where
their mouth is. For example, if every major feature, regardless of actual or
estimated cost, had a $2000 Backer page - the order in which the Backer
succeeds would determine priorities.

Obviously, I'm just spit-balling b/c I just saw this but it's got me thinking.
I wouldn't want it to look like a nickel-and-dime operation but one where it
actually makes sense to use this method. I think the law lends itself well in
that situation.

~~~
ericecook
I'm not sure if this is quite what you're looking for, but I've been working
on developing a service that tries to solve this kind of problem. It's project
centric with crowdfunding for different "problems" on the project. We've got a
coming soon page up now if you'd be interested in taking a look at it,
feedback is always welcomed. We should be posting to HackerNews officially in
a few days.

[http://crowdlink.io/](http://crowdlink.io/)

~~~
MWil
how can you cost effectively allow penny donations? Isn't the cost of running
the campaign and the cost of accepting credit cards something like
$.35/transaction?

~~~
ericecook
We actually have an account system for users that maintains a balance. So the
$0.30/transaction is charged on funds entering the network, but once funds are
in the network all transfers between accounts are charged a percentage fee
regardless of amount. More info on how our fees will be assessed is available
from the help link at the bottom of the page.

------
samatman
This is a good idea. Not, necessarily, a great one; I feel more can be done
with crytocurrency platforms than attaching them to a Kickstarter.

I have questions, but only one that's pressing. It appears that Backer pays
out when the project is complete. Given that they accept Bitcoin, what happens
if Bitcoin substantially depreciates or appreciates in value in the interim?
Is the house floating both risks, or either?

------
wikwocket
This is a cool idea. If the creators are watching this channel, might I
suggest a few ideas?

\- Tweak the campaign page layout to more closely match Kickstarter et al. Big
hero graphic/video, packages down the right, extensive sales pitch down the
left. This layout is effective, flexible, and more importantly, the de facto
standard for crowdfunding. You want people to immediately grok what the
campaign is and how it works.

\- Allow projects to have screenshots/mockups/videos/slideshow/etc. If you
want campaigns to succeed, let people put some sexy graphics up there, maybe
even the occasional high-production-value Kickstarer-esque video. Worth a
thousand words, and all that.

\- If you get critical mass, allow people to browse projects. This will allow
potential clients to see all the campaigns out there, and may even build a
community of backers. This is one of the real assets of Kickstarter - a
community of early adopters, ready to spend cash for fun projects, frequently
checking the "popular projects" page.

------
Stenerson
This is a good way to show everyone that you have a limited amount of time and
resources and that a company can't deliver _everything_ in a reasonable amount
of time. We do something similar with our product management process but
instead of customers buying features we have internal stakeholders purchase
them.

We'll take some percentage of a release and set feature "prices" based on a
swag of effort. Then we allocate a percentage of release time as "dollars" to
the stakeholders. We just keep track of it manually since it's all internal
but we've found the process works nicely for feature prioritization.

------
steveklabnik
We just had great success trying this idea out. It was via CrowdTilt, not
Backer, but our customers pre-paid over $50k for push-to-cards:
[http://blog.balancedpayments.com/push-to-
cards/](http://blog.balancedpayments.com/push-to-cards/)

I'm also really excited about open source projects self-funding via this. Or
at least, paying for someone to do design, write documentation, or all the
other non-development expenses. Think NPM raising that money to keep the
service going.

~~~
opendomain
I think what you did is the best way to build features for paid apps - by
giving a discount or other advantage by pre-paying. For open source projects,
it makes sence for a donation to gauge interest, but I think I would still
like a "contribution" or other way to recognize people that paid for features.

------
aagha
LOVE this idea, but I think it needs to be "flipped". I like how they're
letting developers test a feature idea/theory, but it'd be great too if they'd
let users of products suggest features for software they use and suggest how
much they'd be willing to pay for it.

For example, I use (and love!) Workflowy, and I'd pay $20 to have the ability
to upload images directly into an outline-item and $50 for an Android client
(yes, BTW, yes I would).

These could be considered pledges which the developer could get people to
commit to before they build the feature out.

------
volkk
this is rather funny because a friend and i were seriously contemplating
building this exact thing for a while. unfortunately we deemed it pointless to
build because there would just be too many various ramifications when dealing
with people attempting to fund other companies.

e.g -- imagine a company like.....amazon gets some "request" to add a feature.
say the feature is to add bitcoin as their payments (to use one of your
examples from the site). okay, that is a large integration that costs lots of
money and a lot of decision making. it will also take quite some time,
naturally. it will bounce around the higher ups, then time will be prioritized
for it, and a team will be assigned to work on this. thats the ideal
situation, correct? except what will really happen is that the higher ups will
hear about say....5k people that want bitcoin accepted that have donated
maybe...10k-15k total for this cause. they have about 250 other things on
their internal company pipeline that are probably higher priority. they will
simply throw this request out. it's just too naive to think companies will
adhere to the whims of the public. I can perhaps see small indie companies
doing this but even then, there will be plenty of hurdles such as "well
technically this is impossible in its current state, but we can work on
something very similar except now we have $15k to work on this but the similar
thing is a bit easier to do and slightly different, so now we need a new
campaign to re calculate the costs?" \-- it's a great idea, but unless you
have some genius way to cope with company internals, i don't see a bright
future for this product, unfortunately.

------
robbles
Great idea! Is this connected to App.net at all, or just built by the company?

~~~
dalton
Thanks

We are using it (and plan to continue using it) for our own market validation
tests, and so yes it is connected. We are also making use of a few App.net API
features to power it.

------
edoceo
A site at [http://bitkick.org/](http://bitkick.org/) has been working in a
similar space. Also offering no fees for open source projects.

~~~
quadrangle
Gah, why in the heck does that exist? We already have the failed systems:
CoFundOS, BountyOSS, Public Software Fund, and many others. There's
BountySource (which is a rip-off that charges a fee _up-front_ ) and the most
viable actually functioning site: freedomsponsors.org

There's tons of others. Open Funding, Bounty Funding, FOSS Factory… and this
new thing that this posting is about.

If bounties really worked, we'd see them working by now after tons of attempts
and years of trials. And they do work sorta: freedomsponsors.org is the best
we've got.

Bitkick.org needs to give up. They're just clutter in an already failing
concept. People need to do the research to know what already exists before
throwing up another waste-of-time site.

------
muratmutlu
Great idea, can the page be branded under my startups name or is it app.net?

~~~
dalton
I think we are going to offer it under backer.app.net/project-name. It's
something worth testing I think.

fwiw I have personally witnessed a significant percentage of consumers
accusing a crowdfunding project of being a "scam" if it is hosted on their own
domain rather than an impartial 3rd party like Kickstarter. I think that is
one of the reasons consumers like Kickstarter vs self-hosted crowdfunding.

Additionally, in the Bitcoin use-case, if you have a page on your subdomain
powered by Backer that accept Bitcoin, consumers will be confused and angrily
say that you already accept Bitcoin because that page exists. That is also
something we learned first-hand.

~~~
muratmutlu
Ah I see, although wouldn't backers mostly be our users or people who are
familiar with our product if it was on our own site funding features?

I think we'd go with credit card option as that's what we plan to use on the
site

Either way it's awesome idea congrats on launching

------
lifeisstillgood
It's a nice idea, but I think the "can I get my paying customers to visit
kickstarter" is the smallest and least useful of the possible markets.

Kickstarter is attractive because it serves people who do not (yet) have
paying customers and so is audience building as well as validation. This
requires an existing audience (afaik) so it's less vital.

the area I think this will truly shine is in corporate budget allocation. A
backer for internally committing budgetary funds to new features will allow a
huge range of options and voting preferences to be put within a company - hell
it's pretty much the first step on the road to democracy within corporations
(franchise for the owners of budgets)

this is actually one of those ideas I would want to actually do - it's got
legs. anyone else got any thoughts?

------
belluchan
Very nice, but it does looks like a hard pivot.

