Today many artists and inventors and businessmen rely on donations. But a system where the donation is rewarded with shares would be better.

Then, if the business eventually becomes successful, they will get back dividends. It’s a much more inviting concept. Having shares in something really makes people loyal, in a way that being a donor does not. It would generate much more money IMO.

Patreon (or the ethical alternative whose name I forget) could add this option without much difficulty. The new relationship would be a powerful improvement. It would lead to more and better-funded independent projects everywhere.

  • Arthur BesseA
    4·
    3 years ago

    A “donation” is something where you don’t expect to receive an exclusive benefit from it in the future. An investment is something where you do expect (or at least hope) to.

    Donating to an artist you appreciate generally makes sense. Investing in them only makes sense if you expect them to use your investment to create future revenue (hopefully from sources other than donations and more “investors”!) which you want a piece of.

    • roastpotatothiefOPM
      1·
      3 years ago

      All true. That’s the traditional perspective and it’s 100% correct.

      But there are (successful) hybrid models where it’s not so clear cut:

      • For many charities, you donate a fixed amount and in return you get magazines and stickers and things.
      • Many vloggers publicly print the names of their donors - the fame/pride is a different type of reward. It’s getting closer to an advertising model, where the donation wins you publicity.

      I’m sure there are other examples. The point is, people donate more when they feel like they’re getting something in return, even if it’s intangible or minuscule or free.

      I’m proposing a new hybrid model, where the thing they feel like they get back is a small chance of future return in the distant future. If you’re into traditional investment, it’s the same rationale behind giving share-options to employees.