Category Archives: Legal Issues and Regulation

Too big to flop: Inside Indiegogo’s plan to circumvent crowdfunding failures

Share

Digital Trends | By | Feb 5, 2017

Accent cat ear headphones

Crowdfunding has a failure problem.  Over the past couple years, platforms like Kickstarter and Indiegogo have been host to quite a few high-profile flops. Just last month, the once-super promising Lily camera drone project crashed back to earth. Having collected $34 million in pre-orders from a massive 60,000 customers, it closed shop before entering production.

Before that, there was the Coolest Cooler debacle: an ongoing) predicament in which the most successful Kickstarter project of all time (over $13 million in pledges) failed to deliver to thousands of its backers.

Before that, it was the Zano Drone: a failed UAV project that left over 14,000 orders unfulfilled. The list goes on and on.

Crowdfunding feeds into the “couple of guys (or gals) building something in a garage” dream that Silicon Valley is built on.

Thing is, these aren’t isolated incidents — they’re just the most widely-publicized ones. Spend just a few minutes Googling your chosen category of crowdfunding project (video game, desk toy, drinks cooler, UAV) and you’ll find hear about so many crowdfunding disasters that you’ll want to get memories of Kickstarter and its ilk surgically removed from your brain.

In some of these crowdfunding horror shows, refunds are thankfully given out. In others, creators are never heard from again, and the idea that you’ll get your hard-earned money back is as likely as a friendly resolution to an argument in a YouTube comments section.

Unpacking all of this isn’t easy. Most crowdfunding entrepreneurs we speak with harbor the fear that nobody is going to pay any attention to their campaign; worrying about what will happen if people pay it too much attention is like seeking an advance restraining order against Mila Kunis on the off chance that she might one day start stalking you.

See:  Move over Kickstarter, equity crowdfunding lets you get a piece of the action, not just a lousy T-shirt

From a subscriber perspective, it’s no less complex. Part of what we love about crowdfunding is the DIY ethos behind it. If a company is too established, if it’s a millionaire movie star raising money for a project they could pay for themselves, people understandably bristle. Crowdfunding feeds into the “couple of guys (or gals) building something in a garage” dream that Silicon Valley is built on. You’re along for the ride. Delays are commonplace and, so long as they’re not indefinite and backers are kept informed of progress, most don’t get too upset.

After all what’s the alternative: turning crowdfunding into platforms geared only at the pros, rather than the kind of democratized market place it was envisioned as?

So what’s the answer?

As crowdfunding continues to develop, these are questions that need to be addressed, not willfully ignored. This is a conundrum Indiegogo is trying to help solve. As the one of the top two crowdfunding sites (alongside Kickstarter) Indiegogo has hosted more than 700,000 campaigns over its 8.5 years of life — and helped raise over $1 billion in pledges along the way.

However, with more and more stories of failure among crowdfunding entrepreneurs, Indiegogo is trying to change its service to resolve some of the frequent problem users and entrepreneurs face.

For Indiegogo CEO David Mandelbrot, the campaign which alerted him to the problem was a 2015 project on the platform called Axent Wear Cat Ear Headphones.

“It was created by two design students at UC Berkeley who had the original goal of raising around $250,000, and raised over $3 million on Indiegogo,” Mandelbrot told Digital Trends. “But they were design students: they’d never done manufacturing of a consumer product at scale. Their story was the inspiration for our lifecycle strategy.”

Continue to the full article --> here

The National Crowdfunding Association of Canada (NCFA Canada) is a cross-Canada non-profit actively engaged with both social and investment crowdfunding stakeholders across the country. NCFA Canada provides education, research, leadership, support and networking opportunities to over 1500+ members and works closely with industry, government, academia, community and eco-system partners and affiliates to create a strong and vibrant crowdfunding industry in Canada. Learn more at www.ncfacanada.org.

 

Share

BCSC Seeking Input from BC Fintech and Tech Firms

Share

BCSC | Alison Walker | Jan 24, 2017

BCSC w text colour

Vancouver - The British Columbia Securities Commission (BCSC) today released an online survey, published a new tech industry webpage, and announced a dedicated Tech Team as a part of its ongoing outreach aimed at BC fintech and tech companies as well as other stakeholders active in these sectors.

"The BCSC supports innovation and the adoption of new technologies in the financial services sector," said Brenda Leong, BCSC Chair and CEO. "We understand that early-stage companies need access to capital and a clear regulatory framework to operate in. Through our Tech Team's active outreach, we will broaden our knowledge and understanding of the impacts of regulation, and provide fintech and tech companies with resources and information to help them succeed."

The BCSC invites anyone involved in the BC Tech industry to complete the survey. We are interested in hearing from all those willing to contribute their ideas and experience in an effort to learn more about this dynamic sector. The survey will be open until February 21, 2017. The BCSC will use information gathered from the survey and its ongoing outreach work to determine next steps.

Fintech is growing in British Columbia and together with the broader tech sector is developing innovative approaches to delivering financial and other services. The online survey and new webpage build on the work the BCSC has been doing to support emerging investment advisory services, crowdfunding platforms, and online marketplace lenders.

Currently, the BCSC has registered 10 robo-advisory firms, exempted seven firms from registration as crowdfunding portals, and registered a further nine portals as exempt market dealers. The BCSC also works with other Canadian securities regulators to support fintech industry growth by facilitating timely and harmonized reviews of registration and exemptive relief applications.

"Our aim is to work with stakeholders to provide flexible and balanced regulation for innovative business models," Leong said. "We also need to assess whether securities regulations are keeping pace with the evolving tech landscape."

Those interested in taking the survey will find it on the new tech industry page, which consolidates guidance and resources the BCSC has produced over the years, and provides contact information for BCSC's Tech Team. The webpage is a good starting point for those seeking to learn more about how securities regulation intersects with BC's tech sector.

About the British Columbia Securities Commission (www.bcsc.bc.ca)

The British Columbia Securities Commission is the independent provincial government agency responsible for regulating capital markets in British Columbia through the administration of the Securities Act. Our mission is to protect and promote the public interest by fostering:

  • A securities market that is fair and warrants public confidence
  • A dynamic and competitive securities industry that provides investment opportunities and access to capital

- 30 -

Media Contact:
Alison Walker
604-899-6713

Public inquiries:
604-899-6854 or 1-800-373-6393 (toll free)
inquiries@bcsc.bc.ca

=====================================

The National Crowdfunding Association of Canada (NCFA Canada) is a cross-Canada non-profit actively engaged with both social and investment crowdfunding stakeholders across the country. NCFA Canada provides education, research, leadership, support and networking opportunities to over 1500+ members and works closely with industry, government, academia, community and eco-system partners and affiliates to create a strong and vibrant crowdfunding industry in Canada. Learn more at www.ncfacanada.org.

Share

Watch Out, the ICOs Are Coming

Share

Startup Management |By : | Jan 23, 2017

Digital Crowd

First came Bitcoin, then blockchains arrived. Cryptocurrencies and decentralized protocols followed.

Now, the ICOs are coming. And the ICO funds are also arriving. And a crash will be forthcoming.

To paraphrase Clay Shirky’s famous book title, Here Comes Everybody, a moniker describing how crowds form online as quickly as wildfire.

New tokens are being listed every week. Dozens of startups are planning their ICO’s, and funds that specialize in these tokens are feeding the investment and speculation frenzy. Even websites offer out-the-box services to create, promote, run and list your ICO with, describing the process to being as easy as microwave cooking.

The regulators are watching, mostly without taking harmful actions (so far), which is interpreted positively by startups who would rather ask for forgiveness than permission. Let’s do more. The door is open, and no one is shutting it.

Companies behind these ICOs are promising the moon and the stars, putting out polished websites, white papers, advisory boards, Slack channels, GitHubs, peppering with some legalese language, and topping it with the full dressing support enchilada they can think of; in order to appear as legitimate, as hard-working, as smart and as credible as possible.

Don’t get me wrong. ICOs are a good alternative funding model that holds an exciting promise, as I’ve explained in How Cryptocurrencies and Blockchain-based Startups Are Turning The Traditional Venture Capital Model on Its Head, in addition to outlining some steps and criteria on how to evaluate them.

But I see some issues with the current environment.

Startup diligence is pretty light

Diligence is tilted towards appearances, parabolic claims, white papers, a minimum of legal and lots of online dressing-up. There is relatively little involvement from traditional venture capitalists who typically dispense startup investment. VCs aren’t always right, and granted their model is being disrupted by the ICOs, but they generally have a sense about startups anatomies.

Previously, you were funded because your ideas, teams and initial product progress were worthy of it, at least someone thought so. Now, companies publish a paper making the case for their idea, open some docs for reviews, and ask for money in return for a promise to deliver something maybe in one or two years, that may or may not be accepted by the market.

Along the way, they drag a crowd of investors who buy into it, without necessarily being well informed, nor having used the product. During that process, there isn’t much talk about execution abilities, operational experience, or the rest of the team that will end-up being hired. Much of the analysis is on the surface, often tough to prove or disprove, in part due to a rushing and artificial urgency.

Download:  2016 Alternative Finance Crowdfunding in Canada Report

The 3 typical characteristics, team, product and market seem to have taken a secondary position to the 3 new magical words: tokens, blockchain and decentralization.

Token utility linkage is not always there

The assumption that everything with a potential network effect is going to work with a decentralization starting point is not entirely true. The blockchain is not for everything.

The solution or product being developed needs to have a solid business model linkage that has a particular value when decentralization and/or tokenization of actions take place. The promise of a new model needs to be very compelling.

In the name of decentralization, the promises are big. You can’t just slap a token to anything, and expect magic to happen.

The token is not the business model. The value proposition or utility that is enabled by the token is the business model, and that linkage needs to be there early on. If the direction is not right, the chosen path will not lead to a good place.

The marketing hype is frightening

Some ICOs are being marketed like a rocket ship, but in reality, no startup is a rocket ship. A lot of the communication is biased towards the most optimistic assumptions, but nothing goes up in a straight line.

With an ICO, 3 asynchronous periods seem to have blurred and collapsed into one: early stage, go-to market, product-to-market fit. Just because it makes sense in theory doesn’t mean that it will make sense when the market realities enter the picture.

Early Bird 40% Discount Until Jan 31:  Third Annual Canadian Crowdfinance Summit (Feb 28-Mar 1)

True that some level of speculatory fever can help to fund projects and give them a longer runway life, but if the expectations get far ahead of reality, the gaps may be harder to bridge, resulting in a downward spiral snap.

For good or bad reasons, raising lots of money can hide a lot of mistakes along the way, and there is some of that going on.

Financial engineering has its traps

A rule of thumb for many ICOs has been to allocate 85% of the tokens to the market, and keep 15% for developers and company, but this is a risky ratio. It is equivalent to raising all your funding at once. In the best cases, companies assume that the token will go up in price, which would enable the company (or protocol operator) to never need to raise money again. But not every company is like Bitcoin or Ethereum, just as not every startup is like Facebook or Twitter.

Of course, a smart company would not release more funding to itself until milestones are reached, but few will exercise that type of discipline. Fewer ICOs make a provision for subsequent funding events beyond the ICO.

All and all, funding a startup is not a one shot deal. Too much financial engineering is just that. I would urge anyone planning an ICO to re-read the excellent Security Laws Framework for Blockchain Tokens paper, especially the Appendix.

Continue to the full article --> here

The National Crowdfunding Association of Canada (NCFA Canada) is a cross-Canada non-profit actively engaged with both social and investment crowdfunding stakeholders across the country. NCFA Canada provides education, research, leadership, support and networking opportunities to over 1500+ members and works closely with industry, government, academia, community and eco-system partners and affiliates to create a strong and vibrant crowdfunding industry in Canada. Learn more at www.ncfacanada.org.

Share

For crowdfunding to succeed, we must level the playing field

Share

Globe and Mail | Robert Keller and Michael Motala | Jan 21, 2017

Crowdfunding competitiveness

Robert Keller is a senior securities lawyer with experience in regulation and private practice in both Canada and the United States; Michael Motala is a member of the Overseas Press Club of America studying at Columbia University and Osgoode Hall Law School.

The first anniversary of Canada’s crowdfunding rules is upon us, and the infant regime’s annual performance has been disappointing in global comparison. To enhance our national competitiveness, securities regulators must heed the industry’s demands for harmonized regulation and, in particular, address disparities between crowdfunding and similar sectors of alternative finance.

The National Crowdfunding Association of Canada (NCFA) recently estimated that, in 2016, Canadian crowdfunding raised $190-million, with capital formation growing 48 per cent from 2013-15. Yet, only a handful of companies have made use of the new crowdfunding rules, and the market’s growth pales in comparison with our British and American peers. Alternative-finance professionals blame Canada’s inefficient, onerous and regionally inconsistent regulatory landscape for the slower uptake.

Free Download:  Canada's most comprehensive report on Alternative Finance Crowdfunding in Canada

According to the NCFA, the United States and Britain have projected alternative-finance volumes of $36-billion (U.S.) and £3.2-billion respectively. Even when adjusted for our much smaller population, Canada’s crowdfunding market has underperformed, and this poses a risk to our international competitiveness by potentially limiting the growth of Canada’s most innovative small- and medium-sized businesses.

Canada’s complex securities-regulation regime is an outlier in the OECD world, and a burden for investors and firms looking to raise capital here, particularly small- and medium-sized enterprises. The securities industry has called upon the Ontario Securities Commission and other provincial regulators to remove unnecessary burdens and harmonize confusing regulations. Similarly, regulators should also turn their attention to the inconsistent regulations governing certain types of social impact investing, which is arguably a specialized type of crowdfunding.

Social impact investing capitalizes new and innovative startups that seek to solve social and environmental challenges. Like crowdfunding portals, social impact investment hubs connect socially inclined issuers with like-minded investors, usually to raise a relatively small amount of seed capital, with the advantage of avoiding the often more costly and regulation-heavy mechanisms of traditional capital markets. Canada’s leading hub, the Social Venture Connection (SVX), is a not-for-profit venture that went live 2 1/2 years ago. Already, similar ventures are receiving international attention, but little is known about the SVX among the broader Canadian public.

Part of the problem is that the gatekeepers to the social impact investment market, and SVX in particular, seem overzealous.

Don't Miss:  2017 Canadian Crowdfinance Summit (Save 40% Until Jan 31)

Prospective investors face a significant regulatory hurdle when it comes to SVX: Each must qualify as an “accredited investor” under applicable provincial securities law. This means that individuals generally need a net worth of at least $1-million (Canadian), or an annual income of at least $200,000 for the previous two years.

By contrast, anyone may invest in issuers raising capital under the crowdfunding rules. While restrictions limit how much an individual can invest in crowdfunded ventures – namely, a maximum of $2,500 a distribution, and no more than $10,000 per year – the playing field is open to all.

Presumably, in 2013, when regulators approved the SVX, they believed that only wealthy investors could sustain the potential losses relating to the high-risk investments that the SVX was expected to offer. Accredited investor restrictions were imposed essentially to protect non-wealthy investors from themselves. However, beginning in January, 2016, Canada’s crowdfunding rules went into effect, and arguably, the ventures that seek funding under those rules carry risks commensurate with those of SVX-based ventures.

Continue to the full article --> here

The National Crowdfunding Association of Canada (NCFA Canada) is a cross-Canada non-profit actively engaged with both social and investment crowdfunding stakeholders across the country. NCFA Canada provides education, research, leadership, support and networking opportunities to over 1500+ members and works closely with industry, government, academia, community and eco-system partners and affiliates to create a strong and vibrant crowdfunding industry in Canada. Learn more at www.ncfacanada.org.

Share

Victory: Gust Wins Crowdfunding Patent Infringement Case Against AlphaCap Ventures

Share

Crowdfund Insider | | Dec 20, 2016

david-rose-gust

Two Year Patent Troll Case Ends in Triumph as Gust Refuses to Settle in “Giant Win” for Crowdfunding Industry.

Gust, the “world’s largest community of entrepreneurs and early-stage investors”, has won a huge victory in court that impacts the entire crowdfunding industry. Today Gust announced the end of a two-year court case originally brought against it by the patent assertion entity AlphaCap Ventures. Crowdfund Insider covered the case originally in early 2015 when it was discovered that AlphaCap Ventures had filed a patent infringement lawsuit against 10 different crowdfunding platforms. We posited at the time that AlphaCap may have tried to pick a fight outside its weight class. Gust has now claimed victory as US District Judge Denise Cote found the case “exceptional” under 35 U.S.C. § 285, described as a rarity in patent cases, and awarded Gust over $500,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs, against both the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s counsel, Gutride Safier LLP.

The patent lawsuit filed by AlphaCap claimed ownership over “online equity financing”. As with most other patent lawsuits, the case was brought in the Eastern District of Texas.  This court is known as a patent troll haven and has benefitted economically from an assumed bias in favor of trolls.

Nine of the defendants, including some of the biggest names in crowdfunding like Indiegogo, AngelList, GoFundMe, RealtyMogul and more, decided to settle and skip a prolonged legal battle. Gust decided to go to war. David Rose, Gust founder and CEO, vowed to fight the case all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary.

Checkout:

Speaking with Crowdfund Insider, Rose explained his motivation to confront the AlphaCap patent troll and stand up for the emergent industry;

“We decided to fight the case the minute we were served. For a host of reasons it was obviously a completely bogus case from the very beginning, and it was apparent—to us AND to the troll, as they later admitted and the judge confirmed—that they would have no chance whatsoever of winning if it went to trial. So my first attempt was to rally the other defendants, get everyone to throw in a few dollars, and take a united stand at beating down the troll. But because there is always at least a tiny chance that you could lose in court, and because litigation can be frightfully expensive whether you lose or win, the others decided—from their perspective, probably quite rationally—to optimize their short-term economics and pay tens of thousands of dollars to make the ‘nuisance suit’ go away.”

“Unfortunately for the troll, however, I’m just not built that way. Since we felt certain that as long as we were willing to keep fighting, we would ultimately win, from Day One we put a standing offer on the table to the troll: pay our legal fees, give us the patents, and go home. This drove their attorneys absolutely crazy, to the point that they were screaming at our lawyers “it’s not supposed to work that way!”

So they continued to attack, assuming that as the costs mounted we would eventually give in. But I’m a strong believer in principles, and one of them is “millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute”. Besides, I felt that Gust, as the oldest, largest and most comprehensive online platform, had an implicit obligation to stand up for the industry that we had helped create: for those who hadn’t yet been sued, for anyone who would want to enter the online funding industry in the future, and even for those who had chosen to settle rather than fight.”

Continue to the full article --> here

The National Crowdfunding Association of Canada (NCFA Canada) is a cross-Canada non-profit actively engaged with both social and investment crowdfunding stakeholders across the country. NCFA Canada provides education, research, leadership, support and networking opportunities to over 1500+ members and works closely with industry, government, academia, community and eco-system partners and affiliates to create a strong and vibrant crowdfunding industry in Canada. Learn more at www.ncfacanada.org.

Share

The UK government invests £85 million in peer-to-peer lending sector where the watchdog has ‘concerns’

Share

Business Insider UK | | Dec 13, 2016

rate-setter

LONDON — £85 million of taxpayer money is invested in the peer-to-peer (P2P) lending sector, an industry where the financial regulator identified "evidence of potential investor detriment" in a report last week.

The state-owned British Business Bank (BBB) has £60 million invested on Funding Circle, £15 million invested on MarketInvoice, and £10 million on RateSetter, according to a Freedom of Information request seen by Business Insider.

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), Britain's finance regulator, on Friday flagged "concerns" around the growing complexity of the peer-to-peer market. The FCA writes in its report: "Firms’ desire to maintain confidence in platforms has occasionally led to firms acting in a nontransparent manner, masking true loan performance and exposing investors to risks."

While the FCA does not identify any specific firms in its report, it flags certain practices such as intervention by peer-to-peer lenders to influence loan performance and lending to provision funds (special vehicles meant to pay for a certain amount of investor losses). RateSetter has both made an on-balance loan to a business it crowdfunded a loan for and restructured its provision fund to allow bail-ins.

Peer-to-peer lending platforms are marketplaces for loans, connecting borrowers with people willing to invest their own money in those loans for good returns. The BBB invests platforms that allow it to extend loans to small businesses.

The BBB began investing on Funding Circle and MarketInvoice in 2013 and RateSetter in 2014. It undertook extensive due diligence on each platform before committing the money. But FCA CEO Andrew Bailey told Business Insider in an interview last week: "It's a fast-moving, evolving industry. Some of the directions in which it's going off are posing some quite big challenges in terms of transparency and fairness."

John O'Connell, Chief Executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance, told Business Insider over email: "This is extremely concerning and taxpayers will want to know how this can be good use of their money.

"The wider question is why taxpayers are funding loans to begin with. There are answers to be found on how to increase lending from commercial banks, but the Government stepping in with a taxpayer-funded alternative should not be one of them."

The British Business Bank was set up by the government in 2012 with £1 billion of funding to increase funding to small and medium enterprises (SMEs). It does not finance SMEs directly but works through partners and intermediaries to extend funding.

A spokesperson for the British Business Bank told Business Insider: "Peer-to-peer lending platforms have the potential to be a successful delivery model for small business finance. Investing in these, and other kinds of platforms is a vital part of our remit to foster a more diverse small lending market for smaller businesses; indeed more than 10,000 smaller businesses across the country have already benefited from our partnership with Funding Circle.

Just Released:  Download the 2016 Alternative Finance Crowdfunding in Canada Industry Report

"One of our four strategic objectives is to manage taxpayer resources efficiently and within a robust risk management framework. The return across the British Business Bank programmes between 2015-16 was over 2%."

Continue to the full article --> here


The National Crowdfunding Association of Canada (NCFA Canada) is a cross-Canada non-profit actively engaged with both social and investment crowdfunding stakeholders across the country. NCFA Canada provides education, research, leadership, support and networking opportunities to over 1500+ members and works closely with industry, government, academia, community and eco-system partners and affiliates to create a strong and vibrant crowdfunding industry in Canada. Learn more at www.ncfacanada.org.

Share

Crowdfunding proponents blame regulators for slow growth

Share

The Globe and Mail | Brenda Bouw | December 12, 2016

emerging-trends

Canada’s crowdfunding industry is “punching below its weight” compared to international markets, says a new industry report, which blames in part the country’s varied regulations for the alternative investing model.

While the crowdfunding market is growing, it’s “noticeably smaller” compared to the U.S. and the U.K. and expanding at a slower rate, says the inaugural industry report being released on Tuesday by the National Crowdfunding Association of Canada (NCFA).

It shows Canadian crowdfunding volume reached $133-million in 2015 and is expected to grow to $190-million in 2016, “confirming that it is a genuine source of seed and growth capital for companies seeking funding.”

Still, the report says the industry is behind and growing “much slower than Canada’s leading international comparators.”

The report, titled 2016 Alternative Finance Crowdfunding in Canada, cites studies pegging the U.S. industry at $47.3-billion Canadian and the U.K. industry at $5.3-billion Canadian.

It’s the first major report on the crowdfunding industry in Canada, highlighting the state of the alternative finance model and looking at the various types of crowdfunding, including donations/rewards, equity and debt.

It’s the equity crowdfunding market – when investors buy a stake in a private company in hopes of receiving a financial return – that’s being closely watched after new rules were put in place by various provinces about a year ago.

The new regulations are intended to control the market as it opens up to everyday investors. Before the rules were made, only accredited investors, such as institutions and high-net-worth individuals, were able to get in on the ground floor of a young company.

Investors and startups argue the new equity crowdfunding regulations increase access to capital for entrepreneurs, while at the same time giving investors more options. Regulators say the rules are in place to protect investors from putting too much money into young, high-risk companies.

See:  Join us at 3rd Annual Canadian Crowdfinance Summit & Expo (March 1-2, 2017)

The report says equity crowdfunding is expected to grow by about 275 per cent this year to $30-million, up from $8-million in 2015. While that’s impressive growth, it’s still lagging compared to international jurisdictions. In the U.K., for example, equity crowdfunding deals reached about £332-million (around $553-million Canadian) in 2015, up from £84 million in 2014.

“We have fragmented, non-uniform and probably non-competitive crowdfunding regulations,” says Craig Asano, NCFA of Canada’s founder and executive director.

Canada has been slower to adopt online alternative finance models, has a smaller population and fewer investors. However, the report says it’s the country multi-provincial regulatory environment that’s stagnating growth.

Some provinces across Canada have different sets of crowdfunding regulations with limits on how much individual companies can raise each year and a cap on annual investments for individuals. In some provinces, the regulations overlap. In others, such as B.C. and Ontario, different rules apply.

The report calls on policymakers to “remove unnecessary burdens and harmonize confusing regulations” that will enable funding portals to grow and profit. It also wants a more level playing field between portals, citing the Ontario Securities Commission’s recent decision to provide Silicon Valley funding giant AngelList special exemptions from registration requirements. It also says more education and awareness is needed for companies and investors to help grow the sector.

Without changes, Mr. Asano said some investors and companies will continue to raise and spend capital outside of Canada where rules are considered more favourable.

“This isn’t just a regulatory issue, but a Canadian innovation and economic development problem,” Mr. Asano says.

Continue to the full article --> here

report-button


Special (limited) early bird discounts opening soon!

3rd-annual-canadian-crowdfinance-summit-900x300

The National Crowdfunding Association of Canada (NCFA Canada) is a cross-Canada non-profit actively engaged with both social and investment crowdfunding stakeholders across the country. NCFA Canada provides education, research, leadership, support and networking opportunities to over 1500+ members and works closely with industry, government, academia, community and eco-system partners and affiliates to create a strong and vibrant crowdfunding industry in Canada. Learn more at www.ncfacanada.org.

Share