Karsten Wenzlaff, Advisor
August 26th, 2025
The Globe and Mail | Contributor Jeff Musson | Oct 21, 2014
Canadian tech entrepreneurs may play a leading role in the global marketplace, but they do a poor job of celebrating their successes.The country’s tech community must do a better job of highlighting its accomplishments for our political leaders, which is why North of 41, a grass roots tech entrepreneur based group, is organizing Tech Day on Parliament Hill. The event takes place on Oct. 21 during Small Business Week. The purpose of Tech Day on the Hill is to bring together Canadian tech entrepreneurs with our country’s elected officials and their staffers.
Our tech sector is punching above its weight class and is creating the kind of jobs that can lead Canadian innovation into the future, but our stories are rarely told. Our entrepreneurs are well educated and successful leaders who are developing products and services that are used around the globe. Companies like Kiwi are leading the way in the wearable tech space with their cutting edge products. Vanhawks is another company that’s making waves for raising over $820,000 on Kickstarter to design and build the world’s first.
As a country, we should celebrate these accomplishments. Our goal is to start the discussion as to what next steps should be in order to further the tech agenda in our country.
This event has participation from companies and organizations such as IBM, Softlayer, Bloomberg, Dickinson-Wright, Intuit and Tech Connex in addition to some of Canada’s up-and-coming tech companies such as Shopify, Maxxian and Cityspot just to name a few. There will be demos during the breakfast reception at the Library and Archives building in the morning.
A panel discussion has also been organized that will centre on issues facing Canada’s tech entrepreneurs. The Economic Club of Canada is hosting a lunch at the Chateau Laurier that will focus the discussion on what we as a country can do in order to facilitate growth in Canada’s tech sector. Finally there is an after-work reception at the Moscow Tea Room at 527 Sussex Dr. At the reception, staffers and MPs will be able to demo some of the innovative tech being developed by up and coming companies.
Ottawa should be commended for its willingness to engage our country’s entrepreneurs; however, there’ still much work to be done. All stakeholders must have a hand in helping the development, commercialization and promoting of Canada’s technology sector.
North of 41 is one of these stakeholders and it is our group’s belief that before visionary goals can be achieved in Canada’s tech sector, there must be a grassroots event such as Tech Day on the Hill that will start the discussion between the various groups. This is the only way a successful strategy can be developed and implemented to lead Canadian innovation into the future. As a sector, we must continue to promote our Canadian tech companies, celebrate our success and not be shy about telling the world what we are doing; our time has finally arrived.
Jeff Musson is the president of Dynamitenetwork.com and founder North of 41 @northof41
The National Crowdfunding Association of Canada (NCFA Canada) is a cross-Canada crowdfunding hub providing education, advocacy and networking opportunities in the rapidly evolving crowdfunding industry. NCFA Canada is a community-based, membership-driven entity that was formed at the grass roots level to fill a national need in the market place. Join our growing network of industry stakeholders, fundraisers and investors. Learn more About Us | Support Canadian Crowdfunding.
Equities blog | Michael Markowski | October 20, 2014
There have been two articles or reports that have been published since June 2014, which could spell disaster for Crowdfunding unless its leaders get Crowdfunding heading back to its community roots. The first was a June article, “For many startups there is no crowd in equity crowdfunding” by Paul Niederer, the CEO of the ASSOB (Australian Small Scale Offerings Board). The second was a report by Crowdnetic, which covered the total amount that was raised by leading Crowdfunding platforms for the first 12-month period after Regulation 506C of the JOBS Act went into effect in September of 2013.
Mr. Niederer, in his article, discussed the findings from a study that was conducted by the Australian Governments’ CAMAC (Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee), which were published in its 245 page May 2014 report, “Crowd sourced equity funding.” In 2000, Australia became the first country in the world to approve a form of Crowdfunding.
The CEO of the ASSOB, which is considered to be the world’s oldest and most well-established Crowdfunding platform, explained in his article that there are three levels of investors, which an issuer can tap for capital. He pointed out that only 6% of issuers had been successful in obtaining capital from the third level of investors. This was why he included the phrase, “no crowd in equity crowdfunding” in the title of his article.
Level One: Friends, Family, Fans and Followers
Level Two: Friends of “Friends, Family, Fans and Followers”
Level Three: People or the crowd that have no connection to the issuer
On Oct. 8, Forbes.com published an article “Equity Crowdfunding at Year One, What’s The Impact?” The article provided a breakdown of the aggregate $217.7 million of equity capital that was raised for the 12 months ended September 30, 2014 by the leading Crowdfunding portals for their issuers according to a report released by Crowdnetic. September marked the first anniversary of the enactment of Title II of the JOBS Act or the SEC’s lifting of its 80-year-old advertising and non-solicitation ban.
That an aggregate amount of just over $217 million was raised by the 10 leading U.S. Crowdfunding portals was quite a shock to me. I would have guessed that the amount would have been in the billions. Only 534 of the 3,361 companies attempting to capitalize from the lifting of the ban were successful. The average amount of $407,685 being raised per company was also disappointing. Kay Koplovitz from Forbes.com, who authored the article, stated that she believed that the first 12 months after the provisioning of Title II of the JOBS Act had been a success. However, she qualified that by stating, “Perhaps this is because of my rose colored entrepreneurial glasses.”
After reading Paul Niederer’s June article, I had already come to the realization that the entire equity Crowdfunding initiative was heading in the wrong direction. It was especially apparent after I read the sentence penned by Paul, in his article that contained the phrase, “little or no curation by the platform is a tough gig.” After reading the phrase and with my 37 years of experience in the capital markets, including my dealing with individual investors, it became rather obvious to me that the government-regulated funding portals would not be the catalyst to ignite Crowdfunding. The recent article by Forbes.com only confirmed what I should have never forgotten: “Individual investors are followers and since the portals are prohibited from curating or recommending deals, they cannot lead them.”
The cold hard truth is that since the 1850s, when individuals in the U.S. first started to make investments, the majority of all non-professional investors have relied on or utilized recommendations made by someone else in order to make their own investments. Most of the speakers, including myself, at the Crowdfunding conferences that I have attended since 2012 had prognosticated that the government-regulated funding portals would be the catalyst to make Crowdfunding ubiquitous. The theory that most of the leaders are espousing to this day is, “build the portals and they (the crowd) will come (to invest).” Unfortunately, based on my reading of the two recent articles that is not how it’s going to evolve.
The reason why the ASSOB has raised a total of only $140 million for companies, an average of $10 million per year since it was founded in 2005; is because it’s prohibited by CAMAC from curating or recommending any of the deals that are listed on its platform. Under Title II and under the SEC’s proposed rules for Title III, a US portal cannot curate or recommend the deals that are listed on it. The inability for portal to curate or make a recommendation is the reason why only $217 million has been raised under Title II of the JOBS act to date.
Ironically, the government regulations that were required for the lifting of the Crowdfunding bans have neutered the portals. The regulations have prevented the funding portals from being the catalyst that will ignite global Crowdfunding. The portals are still significant since they are needed to prevent, or at least, reduce fraud.
What needs to be understood is that for equity or finance Crowdfunding to be successful and become ubiquitous, it must revert back to its “community” roots. Whoever put together the language for the JOBS Act should have named it “Community” instead of “Crowd” funding. If Crowdfunding’s leaders redirect their energy towards establishing, fostering and growing communities instead of relying on the funding portals for growth; the growth rate of Crowdfunding could begin to immediately grow exponentially. .
The very first Crowdfundings, or the very first time that US investors transferred their money from their banks to make investments, was in the 1850s. What motivated the pioneers to take the leap was the invention of the steam engine locomotive and the railroad. Merchants and residents of every community back then had no choice but to invest in railroad bonds. The amount of capital needed to build the railroads was enormous. The banks, at the time, refused to loan capital to the railroads. For a community, having a railroad was crucial to its very survival. The laying of railroad track in every community during the 1850s is analogous to the advent of the Internet and everyone gaining access to the web and email in the late 1990s. The railroad transformed the US from an agrarian to an industrial economy. The Internet and the railroad are unquestionably the two single biggest economic developments that occurred in the US during each of the last two centuries.
The U.S.’s early pioneers did not become investors by osmosis. They only invested after they learned about the opportunity from trusted leaders in their communities and because of that trust, followed. There were three brothers who were among the early leaders to emerge in the 1850s. The brothers, whose last name was Lehman, immigrated from Germany to Montgomery Alabama and had become successful merchants. After they started a cotton exchange they came up with the idea to create and sell bonds to finance railroads in communities throughout the south. By 1900, Lehman Brothers was recognized as the premier venture financier for many companies, which emerged to lead the US economy between the late 1800s and the early 1900s.
The online Social Investing Community (SIC) is the vehicle that has evolved to take Crowdfunding back to its roots. There are several SICs, which have emerged; OurCrowd, which is one of them, has raised more capital for its issuer members than any of the top Crowdfunding portals. The $70 million that OurCrowd has raised since February of 2013 is equivalent to half of the $140 million raised by the ASSOB over 10 years.
The National Crowdfunding Association of Canada (NCFA Canada) is a cross-Canada crowdfunding hub providing education, advocacy and networking opportunities in the rapidly evolving crowdfunding industry. NCFA Canada is a community-based, membership-driven entity that was formed at the grass roots level to fill a national need in the market place. Join our growing network of industry stakeholders, fundraisers and investors. Learn more About Us | Support Canadian Crowdfunding.
Equities.com by Steven Cinelli | October 6, 2014
The crowdfunding industry has entered a new, and possibly more legitimate space, in the framework of financial services. I refer to the recent S-1 filing of Lending Club (LC), which elevates the profile of both the company as also the distributed finance industry overall. Lending Club’s claim to an expected $5 billion market capitalization can be viewed as a major success in terms of value creation, market opportunity and the growth of new shadow banking methodologies. We have seen crowd platforms, whether in peer-to-peer lending (P2P) (Prosper and LC), real estate crowdfunding (Fundrise, Realty Mogul), SME loan funding (Funding Circle), raise growth capital at phenomenal valuations, as the marriage of capital formation and technology seems to have delivered a piece de resistance.
But as a banker, who greatly appreciates the application of technology in financial services in terms of creating better efficiencies, improved data and analytics, and overall accessibility, I wonder as to what is the appropriate and responsible assessment of value for these platforms. Technology is simply an enabler. The root business is one of finance. Providing risk capital for a price. Does technology improve the risk assessment, possibly with reams of historical data where actuarial analysis can be applied? But that too is fundamental risk assessment done more swiftly.
LC is being valued as a technology company, not as a financial services company. Let’s think about it. The platform intermediates providers of capital with users of capital, like a bank, possibly more efficiently, but then again maybe not. Simply, LC is providing consumer loans as an alternative to credit cards, with better pricing and structured on an amortized basis rather than as a revolving line of credit. The P2P space has targeted the top 10% tier of the $900 billion credit card user space, hoping to offer lower interest rates than the proverbial mid-teen-plus rates of bank cards. Might a challenge to them be a Chase (JPM) coming out with a 3% bank card? But allow us to go a bit further. Should LC be valued like a LinkedIn (LNKD) or a Facebook (FB) or other social media darlings, or as a fundamental financial intermediary, like a Wells Fargo (WFC) or a Visa (V)?
Wells enjoys the highest market capitalization of banks in the US and the world at approximately $270 billion. For metric purposes, this is about 10% of asset levels, 13 times earnings of $21 billion, and about 1.7 times equity book value. As the margins in the banking business are small, leveraging the balance sheet creates an attractive ROE, but an analyst recognizes the risk of the leverage, all of which enters the assessment. Visa, one of the companies that is a target for the P2P players, carries a market cap of $135 billion, generating $11 billion of annual revenue and $7 billion of operating income, and a book value multiple of under six times. Its model is different, a bit more risk averse, and carries solid margins. These seem to be thriving financial services companies that have certainly engaged in applied technology and are playing in the same space, catering to the same customer, offering a variant of the same product as our crowd platforms.
At a $5 billion valuation, LC is being valued at 200% of asset levels, which are largely loans that it doesn’t own, compared to 10% with Wells, and a book value multiple of 40 times versus Wells at 1.7 times. When contrasted with Visa, which enjoys a book value of $27 billion and an earnings level to support its market cap, one might question the logic of a financial intermediary with projected revenues of $140 million and generating a loss, with footings of $2 billion to achieve the acclaimed value. The rationale can only be a technology spin, as the fundamental business of lending money remains constant. If we were to value LC on the basis of financial services compatriots, maybe placing a two times multiple on its book value of $135 million, or a footings multiple of 10% on $2 billion, we would arrive at a value that may not approach 10% of what the underwriters are placing upon it.
So in the grander view, what creates value? And in particular, within these platforms? Are these highly scalable technology franchises, with incredible margins, earnings capabilities, and fundamentally unique methodologies? Do they own a proprietary clientele, magic sauce risk algorithm, or offering a product heretofore not available? Or are they simply dressed up financing businesses, where industry metrics do not/should not/(or why not) apply, typical of the analysts that valued Groupon (GRPN) or Facebook in their respective S-1s with non-GAAP measures of financial performance?
The National Crowdfunding Association of Canada (NCFA Canada) is a cross-Canada crowdfunding hub providing education, advocacy and networking opportunities in the rapidly evolving crowdfunding industry. NCFA Canada is a community-based, membership-driven entity that was formed at the grass roots level to fill a national need in the market place. Join our growing network of industry stakeholders, fundraisers and investors. Learn more About Us | Crowdfunding | Support NCFA.
CBC News by Laura Payton | September 23, 2014
NDP digital issues critic apologizes for offering to name donors in House as crowdfunding reward
NDP MP Charmaine Borg quickly backpedalled on her offer to make statements in the House of Commons in exchange for donations. (Source: Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press)New Democrat MP Charmaine Borg's attempt at online fundraising is getting a big thumbs-down after she offered to mention donors' names in the House of Commons.
The digital affairs critic tweeted a link to her crowdfunding page Monday in an attempt to raise money for her re-election campaign.
But two of the rewards involved Borg making statements in the House of Commons, which led to immediate criticism.
One was an offer to read in the House of Commons the names of anyone who contributed $50.
For $1,000, she was willing to tell the House "Resistance is futile," a reference to the Borg, the cyborg alien collective featured on Star Trek:The Next Generation that shares her last name.
"Want to help me continue to be your voice in the digital age?" she wrote on Twitter, linking to an online donation site.
Within minutes, Borg removed the rewards and apologized.
'A profoundly bad idea'
"So regarding my crowdfunding campaign I apologize for anyone who got offended with the perks. I didn't see it that way and am changing it," Borg wrote on Twitter.
Crowdfunding sites let a user set a donation goal and offer rewards for different contribution amounts.
The NDP said Borg wasn't available for an interview. She spent the day in her riding north of Montreal.
NDP Leader Tom Mulcair said Borg earned no donations off the rewards before pulling them down.
"I think that the important thing to understand is that Charmaine, when she realized the situation, immediately withdrew that and apologized for it," he said.
Michelle Rempel, minister of state for western economic diversification, however, wasn't mollified.
The National Crowdfunding Association of Canada (NCFA Canada) is a cross-Canada crowdfunding hub providing education, advocacy and networking opportunities in the rapidly evolving crowdfunding industry. NCFA Canada is a community-based, membership-driven entity that was formed at the grass roots level to fill a national need in the market place. Join our growing network of industry stakeholders, fundraisers and investors. Increase your organization’s profile and gain access to a dynamic group of industry front runners. Learn more About Us |About Crowdfunding or contact us at casano@ncfacanada.org.
CBC News | By Amber Hildebrandt | September 15, 2014
Childcare unit latest federally cut group to crowdfund
National child-care data is among the key information that non-profits are hoping the public will help pay for after the federal government cut funds for it. (Source: CBC)How many day-care spaces exist in Canada? How much do the country’s poorest receive in welfare income? Are freshwater fish harmed by cleaning products?
For decades, the federal government paid to answer these questions. Now, non-profit groups are asking the public for donations in a desperate bid to save the data from extinction.
In the past year, three groups turned to crowdfunding, using the trendy but time-consuming online campaign that raises one small donation at a time. The trio — who seek to save child-care, welfare and environmental data — have a combined goal of $70,000.
As the onus in Canada for collecting some key data passes over to a non-profit sector reliant on one-off donations and small fee-for-service contracts, some worry about the impact of such a fragile arrangement.
“Certainly, it’s a bit of a stop-gap measure,” said Evidence for Democracy’s executive director, Katie Gibbs. “It’s pretty hard to do research under that condition of very short-term funding.”
Two of the campaigns successfully achieved their goals — including a think-tank rescuing welfare data and a fundraiser held by the world-renowned Environmental Lakes Area research group, the near-demise of which garnered widespread media attention.
'Flying in the Dark'
A third — Toronto-based Childcare Resource and Research Unit (CRRU) — is in the final week of its months-long campaign to raise $25,000 to publish its biennial report on childcare and has reached half of its goal.
The Experimental Lakes Area covers 58 small lakes in northern Ontario where the research groups studies environmental impacts on fish. (Source: Experimental Lakes Area, Handout/Canadian Press )CRRU Executive Director Martha Friendly remains optimistic, but stresses that the non-profit shouldn’t be in the position of fundraising in the first place.
“Lots of people have commented, … ‘You have to ask somebody on the internet to know how many child-care spaces there are in Canada… that’s crazy!’” said Friendly.
The head of the Canadian Child Care Federation, who uses CRRU’s biennial report, calls the data “absolutely vital.”
“Without it, you’re really flying in the dark. You’re guessing: how’s it going out there?” said Giesbrecht. “They give you really the lay of the land in terms of how child care is funded in Canada … all that critical information that tells you: Is the sector growing? Is it not growing? What kind of spaces are there? Where are the gaps?”
For nearly 20 years, the federal government funded the unit, paying for it to nationally house research on childcare and also publish a report detailing how the provinces and territories, responsible for early childhood education but partially funded by Ottawa, were performing.
In 2007, the Conservative government shut off the tap. The non-profit CRRU produced a pared-down version in the years that followed, relying on foundation donations and one-time contracts.
Idea Spreads
Unlike the U.S., where a large stock of wealthy foundations can fill a funding gap, Friendly warns that Canada doesn’t have the same steady supply of donations.
Friendly stresses that she doesn’t see crowdfunding as a long-term solution. “What we do should be funded by the government,” she says.
The organization decided to try crowdfunding after an employee noticed a successful Giveffect campaign by the Caledon Institute of Social Policy.
Dubbed a “data rescue,” the think tank’s campaign sought to save a welfare report that the National Council of Welfare (NCW) published each year. The arms-length advisory body, created 40 years ago to study and help improve the lives of Canada’s poorest, was dismantled after the federal government slashed its funding to zero in the 2012 budget.
Caledon Institute President Ken Battle and Vice-President Sherri Torjman felt personally invested in the annual report on welfare incomes. Both worked at the council in the 1980s and Torjman helped create the report’s methodology.
“At the time, we had no public information on welfare in Canada,” said Torjman. “People really didn’t know their entitlements or what to expect if they were on welfare, because everything was a closed-door system.”
Caledon Institute’s successful crowdfunding campaign gave the think tank an extra boost in money it needed to take on the welfare incomes report. News of the NCW's closure was too sudden for the institute to find funding for it elsewhere.
The National Crowdfunding Association of Canada (NCFA Canada) is a cross-Canada crowdfunding hub providing education, advocacy and networking opportunities in the rapidly evolving crowdfunding industry. NCFA Canada is a community-based, membership-driven entity that was formed at the grass roots level to fill a national need in the market place. Join our growing network of industry stakeholders, fundraisers and investors. Increase your organization’s profile and gain access to a dynamic group of industry front runners. Learn more About Us |About Crowdfunding or contact us at casano@ncfacanada.org.
TechCocktail | By Ronald Barba | Feb 4, 2014
Last week, Startup Grind DC held a fireside chat event at nclud with SmartThings CEO and co-founder Alex Hawkinson. Aside from talking about his hopes for the DC tech scene and praising the area’s vast resources that encourage tech startup growth, Hawkinson spent some time speaking to the audience about his philosophy when it comes to startup capital and what it takes to run a successful crowdfunding campaign.
Hawkinson certainly has some authority on running successful crowdfunding campaigns. Back in 2012, SmartThings raised over $1.2 million dollars through its Kickstarter campaign, meeting over 480 percent of its $250,000 fundraising goal – this makes it one of the crowdfunding platform’s most funded and most successful campaigns, and only a handful of projects have raised over a $1 million. What’s even more surprising is that SmartThings’ campaign was really more focused on building a community of developers, device makers, and other technologists around its open platform, rather than actually raising funds.
So what makes a great Kickstarter campaign, and how can other people implement their own? According to Hawkinson, the key factor is user engagement. Here’s what he had to say about running a successful crowdfunding campaign:
“I think the reason a lot of Kickstarter and Indiegogo campaigns fail to deliver is because it’s so overwhelming. If you’re successful, the whole community wants to talk to you, and if you don’t respond [to the audience throughout the duration of your campaign], you’re screwing yourself,” said Hawkinson. According to him, the most important thing is to actively engage with your campaign audience. He recalls the moment when they posted one campaign update and received 2,000 comments in response; it took them four full-time people to respond to each and every comment. Engaging with people not only prevents public backlash, but it also rewards you with people who can really advocate your behalf and further your campaign.
“You gotta capture some media attention or other things. Which, we got CNN pick us up four or five days in, then it all started snowblowing from there.” Through their engagement efforts, SmartThings was somehow able to connect with David Tisch, who is one of NYC’s top angel investors (something – Hawkinson admits – he didn’t learn until after Googling him). After Tisch gave a lead to CNN on what the company was trying to accomplish, things really picked up. In order to really get your campaign moving, you need to capture attention from media and influential people. While SmartThings itself didn’t have a list of these kinds of folks ahead of time, he suggests that having these channels ahead of time will really help push your campaign along.
Aside from setting up structured rewards (as is typical with most crowdfunding campaigns), SmartThings regularly added stretch goals. So, say, if this campaign reaches $50,000 we’ll give everybody X or add these additional features. The lure of such additional rewards and stretch goals further allows you to engage with your audience, encouraging them promote your campaign to their various networks.
The National Crowdfunding Association of Canada (NCFA Canada) is a cross-Canada crowdfunding hub providing education, advocacy and networking opportunities in the rapidly evolving crowdfunding industry. NCFA Canada is a community-based, membership-driven entity that was formed at the grass roots level to fill a national need in the market place. Join our growing network of industry stakeholders, fundraisers and investors. Increase your organization’s profile and gain access to a dynamic group of industry front runners. Learn more About Us or contact us at casano@ncfacanada.org.
IndieWire | By Nathan Williams | July 29, 2014
Not the most social person? No worries. This introvert's guide to crowdfunding has you covered.
Seed&Spark has given Indiewire permission to republish this story which originally appeared on their blog.
Thousands of fans. A team of tireless super-producers. An instantly viral concept. A robust network of friends with deep pockets. If you have any of these, congrats! Now save yourself the time and stop reading. This is addressed not to the filmmaker who is primed for crowdfunding success and just needs to fine-tune their campaign but, rather, the talented, passionate filmmaker for whom none of this stuff comes naturally. Because I know exactly how you feel.
I'm a private person (I avoided Facebook until 2013). My films have had touching responses from their relatively small audiences but have nothing resembling an established fan base. My close collaborators are stellar film artists but neither fundraisers nor social media pioneers. I feel queasy asking people for favors and worse asking for money.
But we're kidding ourselves if we let any of that serve as an excuse. If you can make a film, you can crowdfund a film. It may run against the grain of your personality, it may be more work than you want it to be, it may involve countless small disappointments, but if you are smart about constructing your campaign and truly determined to make it a reality, you will succeed. Here's how:
In preparing our campaign for "If There's a Hell Below," I looked at dozens of past crowdfunding campaigns. I looked at campaigns that were huge successes and those that were dismal failures. I looked at campaigns I've personally supported and those I'd never dream of backing (sorry, Mr. Braff).
You've watched thousands of films as you've developed your filmmaking taste, skills, and style. So do your crowdfunding homework for a few nights. We didn't find any individual project that was a perfect model for us, but seeing great ideas and bad ones (and ideas that looked like great ones but failed for some reason) were critical in informing our own strategies. Films have been crowdfunding for half a decade, and they're all still out there to learn from—don't ignore this valuable resource.
We identified two key strengths for "If There's a Hell Below." The first was our actors. Now, our lead actors aren't household names (yet). But we discovered that two of our leads had key roles in a popular series about role-playing games. Our film has almost nothing in common with this series, but a key goal of our project became tapping into its many passionate fans and convincing them it would be cool to see these actors they love in a very different context. And, more broadly, the appeal of the film itself rides on these actors, so putting them front and center in the campaign felt right.
Our second identified strength was our narrative hook. We've got a killer story, but it's dense and character-based and far too much to convey in a sound bite. The hook, however, which involved relinquishing something of a spoiler, was "A journalist meets a government whistleblower in the middle of nowhere, and an hour later one of them is dead." This emphasized a mystery and also tied into our actors (here are our charming actors—one of them will not survive). Are there better hooks out there? Most certainly. But I bet part of you is already a little curious about what happens…