Hacker News Reader

Comment by kikki | Hacker News Reader

It's actually quite amazing how it feels that the author doesn't really mind that he's failed, and sees it as a learning curve. It almost reads like he's proud that he's blown half a mill, just read the title. This is real people's money. Whether or not it was more expensive than you originally planned, whether or not you feel really bad about it, you should not be allowed to just have another go at it. It makes an absolute joke of the entire concept of crowdfunding.

For a Kickstarter that budgeted 50k, received 300k, and was still nowhere near production, that's just really poor management and people like that shouldn't be in the business of making promises and taking other peoples' money.

View on HN

I agree that the author seems very nonchalant about this. He made rookie mistakes that were completely unnecessary. The project was essentially dead from the get-go because they had no idea how much money they needed to raise. The financial projections were comical. Thinking 500k is an nearly unlimited amount of money is shockingly naive for somebody who already has 5 people on the payroll from their existing business.

That said I think some perspective is necessary. Businesses of any size squander money every day of the year. So does the government, obviously. When a billion dollar business squanders $100M on a boneheaded idea nobody blinks an eye. Even though that money could have gone to employees or shareholders. When government projects go way over budget we don't care, because it's par for the course. It's only when tiny 5 people shops mess up that we become judgmental. I don't think that's right.

Squandering 500k is bad, but the 2008 crisis wiped away trillions. Countries start trillion dollar wars on the flimsiest of pretense. Lousy CEOs crash billion dollar companies. In the big picture, a 500k mistake just isn't that big of a deal.

"you should not be allowed to just have another go at it."

Yes you should. Since when did we get the idea that failing at something (even spectacularly) should preclude you from trying again? Nearly everyone who reads HN has benefited enormously from the mindset that allows entrepreneurs to keep trying.

The entrepreneurs you're talking about lose a lot more when they fail in the real world. Networking contacts, trust, even become bankrupt. This company literally just moves on to the next product like it's nothing with no repercussions. Failing at something is fine, being naive and irresponsible with other people's money - without repercussion - is not.

> This company literally just moves on to the next product like it's nothing with no repercussions.

You just flatly assert that. Is it actually true? I don't know, but surely they've at least got their reputation, with backers and others, from this failed product.

> Failing at something is fine, being naive and irresponsible with other people's money - without repercussion - is not.

You're failing to acknowledge that kickstarter backers know -- or should know -- the risk. It's their choice to back a particular project.

It appears that this company is taking the "lessons they learned" and the intellectual property they developed from spending $400,000 of other peoples' money on R&D to get VC investments for their next thing. They've taken other peoples' money and turned it into personal gain while giving nothing back in return. This isn't behavior anyone should encourage.

If there are people who are willing to give them more money to try again, why should the rest of us have any say in it? I probably wouldn't fund them myself, but if there's some investor who is fully aware of what happened here and still wants to fund them, I don't see a reasonable basis to object.

If they aren't lying to anybody, where exactly is the problem?

The $400,000 they spent is now, effectively, an investment into their future product line. It's not a surprise that VCs see that $400,000 of free R&D isn't valueless. The actual individuals who funded this investment will see 0% of the return on it, while the company that fucked up plans on profiting from the software, hardware, and niche-specific expertise they developed while not delivering anything.

Well, to be honest, Kickstarter is not a shop. Even though nowadays it's mostly a marketing tool, it's original idea was to be a way to invest in ideas you like. That is, take a risk with your money.

I think the idea here is that Kickstarter investors are NOT aware and are easily hoodwinked. Why, even this project appears to have been a lie- it's just that the founders were lying to themselves, too.

The assumption being that the Kick starter investors ought to essentially be protected a little against their own gullability.

This of course all serves as a nice allegory of how rules requiring accreditation for some types of investment were born.

You're right, but on the other hand it should be a little harder so that you can't make a habit of dumping the loss onto others. For example, it might be reasonable to be barred from crowdfunding websites going forward, and have to raise money through other channels like regular VCs.

Trying again is perfectly fine. Trying again with other people's money is perhaps less fine.

That's not at all the impression I get. To me he sounds almost burnt-out, and it is admirable that he is being completely (?) honest. No need to get hysterical and all teary-eyed. Obviously they got in over their heads. It sounds like a harrowing story.

What would change your mind? Him writing how he felt? I doubt he was ecstatic about failing, I feel this is more of a "alright, this happened, lets just break it down". I appreciate the writeup.

Regardless of how blame is apportioned, I appreciate the clinical look at how they failed (though it was light on details, like how they actually miscalculated their BOM so drastically). With Kickstarters, it seems you're expected to publicly flog yourself if you fall short of expectations, but that's not necessarily productive.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com