Bottom line: D&O for capital raises already exists. TigerMark is right-sized coverage at the right price for crowdfunding issuers.

Anytime a company raises outside capital and offers a security, the board or investors typically require D&O insurance. This isn't new. VC-backed, PE-backed, and institutionally funded companies have carried D&O coverage for decades. It's table stakes for professional capital formation.

The difference with crowdfunding is who you're raising from and how you're reaching them. Standard D&O policies were written for companies raising from accredited, institutional investors through private networks. Those policies often exclude claims arising from public offerings or general solicitation, which is exactly what Reg CF, Reg A+, and Reg D 506(c) involve.

That leaves crowdfunding issuers with two bad options: buy standard private company D&O that doesn't actually cover their real exposure, or overpay for full public company D&O designed for NASDAQ-listed companies.

That's why we built TigerMark. It's purpose-built for JOBS Act capital raises and covers what standard policies don't:

Claims from unaccredited investors in Reg CF and Reg A+ offerings
General solicitation exposure in Reg D 506(c) raises (where you're publicly advertising to accredited investors)
Specific compliance coverages for securities offerings not available elsewhere
Defense costs when an investor sues (securities litigation runs $250K-$500K+ before trial)
The ability to return investor principal if they allege wrongdoing
TigerMark also covers past or future Reg D 506(b) raises for traditional D&O risks, so your full capital-raising history is protected under one policy.

Beyond the coverage itself, TigerMark lets you showcase to your investors that your offering and company are safeguarded. You can display the TigerMark logo, share your policy summary, and demonstrate that you've taken the same governance steps that institutional-grade companies take.

Short answer: It's never too late, as long as no claim has already been filed.

D&O policies are claims-made, meaning they respond to claims made during the policy period regardless of when the underlying decision happened. TigerMark can backdate the retroactive date to match your offering date (your Form D, 1-A, or 1-C filing), so even if you bind coverage mid-raise or after closing, you're protected for decisions made since day one.

The only scenario that creates a true gap: waiting until after a claim is already filed or circumstances have been formally reported. At that point, that specific claim is uninsurable.

Best practice: Bind before or at launch. But if that window passed, bind now. The protection still applies retroactively to the start of your offering.

I wanted to make a productive investment.

There are 2 types of investing, speculative and productive. When I looked at my retirement account 10 years ago, it was largely index funds and ETFs full of very big corporations like Apple. I realized I wasn't funding Apple or any of the companies in the stock market because I was buying the shares from another investor, no value being created. 

I wanted to invest and fund the operations of businesses creating real value like a local community business or innovative clean tech. I wanted to make a productive investment.

Long story short, the only way the public can make a productive investment is through crowdfunding.

Great question. For me, the first ten years of RegCF were about proving the model works. And it does. Over $3.2 billion raised. More than 8,700 issuers. We built an entirely new asset class from scratch. That debate is over.

So where's the opportunity now? Three places.

First — secondary markets. We created millions of investors holding positions they can't sell. That's not a market, that's a waiting room. The moment we get credible secondary trading infrastructure, everything changes. You get price discovery. You get portfolio management. You get institutions actually paying attention. I've been pushing this at the SEC level because it's the single biggest unlock for this entire ecosystem.

Second — and this is where my research is headed — is what I call the Investomer Effect. We're finding that customers who invest in the companies they buy from behave completely differently. They spend more. They stick around longer. They recruit other customers. The next generation of winners won't be companies that stumble into this — they'll design for it. That's a massive opportunity in tooling, strategy, and frankly in how we think about what a "raise" even means.

Third — data. We now have ten years of public, structured data on early-stage capital formation and nobody is doing anything with it. We've been tracking every single RegCF offering since 2016. We can tell you survival rates, follow-on patterns, institutional crossover — 85% of these companies are still operating, by the way, not the 90% failure rate people assume. That dataset is the foundation for real analytics in private markets. Think of it as building the Bloomberg terminal for this space.

The bottom line? The first decade proved everyday people could invest in startups. The next decade is about proving those investments build wealth — through liquidity, better data, and companies that treat their investors like the customers they already are.

It’s a fair question - and one that nearly every founder, issuer, and portal marketer has asked at some point. The truth is, the rules aren’t stupid so much as stuck in another era. They were written before social media, analytics dashboards, or API-based ad targeting even existed, and they’ve never caught up with the way modern marketing actually works.

Under Regulation Crowdfunding (Reg CF), almost any public communication that even hints at a live investment opportunity is treated as solicitation. The SEC’s framework requires that offering-related messaging be limited to “tombstone-style” notices - factual, stripped of persuasion, and always directing readers back to the funding portal where the full disclosures live.

Why? Because the system is designed to prevent selective solicitation - the idea that someone could cherry-pick who sees an offering, giving certain investors an informational advantage. Regulators want everyone to have the same disclosures, at the same time, in the same place. On paper, that protects fairness and transparency. In practice, it makes every modern marketer feel like they’re working under rules written for the fax-machine era.

The irony is that today’s digital tools could make crowdfunding more transparent, measurable, and accountable - if only the rules allowed sensible use of them. Instead, compliance officers and ad managers spend their lives parsing whether a headline, emoji, or URL parameter “conditions the market.” It’s exhausting, expensive, and, yes, it feels damn stupid.

The hopeful news: the Crowdfunding Professional Association (CfPA) and other policy advocates are pressing the SEC to modernize these rules - to recognize that responsible data-driven marketing can coexist with investor protection. Until that happens, issuers and portals are left threading every campaign through a regulatory needle that was forged in the 1930s and polished once more in 2015. 

The key lesson I've learned over the past decade in the industry is that your campaign needs a marketing budget. I believe that with rare exceptions, a successful campaign needs a marketing budget equivalent to at least 10% of the total raise. One-third to half of that will need to be spent relatively early in the campaign.

Given this requirement, it is important to price your offering in such a way that you factor this in upfront.

If the SEC follows through on the vision in this speech, it could have major knock-on effects for Regulation Crowdfunding (Reg CF) in several ways—particularly if crypto assets and tokenization become integrated into mainstream U.S. securities markets.

Here’s the likely impact broken down:

1. Tokenized Securities Could Become Reg CF Norm
Current situation: Reg CF offerings are mostly traditional equity, debt, or SAFE instruments. Tokenized securities are rare due to unclear SEC guidance, high compliance costs, and custody/trading constraints.
Speech effect: If “Project Crypto” delivers clear, purpose-fit disclosure rules and exemptions for tokenized securities—and allows them to trade on-chain—issuers could easily offer tokenized shares or revenue-sharing tokens under Reg CF.

Impact:

- Faster, cheaper secondary trading of Reg CF securities.
- Greater retail investor appeal due to liquidity potential.
- Easier fractionalization of ownership, making micro-investments practical.
 
2. Clear Rules for Crypto Asset Securities Could Expand Issuer Types
Current situation: Blockchain startups often avoid Reg CF because of uncertainty over whether their token is a security and fear of future enforcement.
Speech effect: Bright-line rules for classifying crypto assets (security vs. commodity vs. collectible) could let Web3 and DeFi projects confidently raise capital under Reg CF without complex offshore structures.

Impact:

- Surge in crypto-native Reg CF campaigns.
- Potential for hybrid offerings (token + equity).
- More investor protections built in through token standards like ERC-3643.
 
3. Custody Rule Changes Could Enable Crypto Asset Holding in Reg CF
Current situation: Custody of digital securities for Reg CF investors is cumbersome—few broker-dealers or funding portals can handle them directly.
Speech effect: If custody rules are modernized to allow self-custody or broader custodian choice, Reg CF investors could hold their securities in personal wallets or use a wide range of regulated custodians.

Impact:

- Lower custodial friction.
- Reduced reliance on illiquid, portal-controlled transfer agents.
- Investor empowerment and portability.
 
4. Secondary Market Liquidity Could Dramatically Improve
Current situation: Reg CF securities can be sold after 12 months (with exceptions), but active markets are minimal due to low adoption of ATSs and high compliance burdens.
Speech effect:

“Super-app” licensing could allow a single platform to handle both primary Reg CF offerings and secondary trading (tokenized and traditional).
On-chain trading systems could operate without traditional intermediaries.

Impact:

- More vibrant secondary markets for Reg CF securities.
- Potential for real-time settlement and 24/7 trading.
 
5. Innovation Exemption Could Lower Barriers for New Reg CF Models
Current situation: New funding portal business models must fit into rigid, pre-defined rules or go through lengthy exemptive relief processes.
Speech effect: An “innovation exemption” could allow experimental Reg CF structures—like DAO-managed investment clubs or community-governed funding pools—to launch quickly with lighter, principles-based oversight.

Impact:

- Faster rollout of creative crowdfunding models.
- More niche, community-driven funding portals.
- Potential for cross-border investment flows into U.S. Reg CF deals.
 
6. Competition With Offshore Platforms Could Shift
Current situation: Offshore token-based capital raises often bypass U.S. retail investors.
Speech effect: By giving crypto and token issuers a clear, efficient domestic path—including under Reg CF—those offerings could shift onshore.

Impact:

- U.S. Reg CF platforms could win back issuers who previously went abroad.
- Stronger global competitiveness of U.S.-based portals.
 
Bottom Line
If implemented, “Project Crypto” could transform Reg CF from a mostly equity/debt crowdfunding market into a fast, on-chain, liquid ecosystem—blurring lines between private and public markets.

The biggest winners would be:

- Issuers seeking low-cost, retail-friendly capital with built-in liquidity.
- Funding portals that adapt quickly to on-chain custody, tokenization, and integrated trading.
- Retail investors who gain faster exit opportunities and broader asset choice.

The key dependencies will be:

- How quickly the SEC finalizes “purpose-fit” Reg CF tokenization rules.
- Whether secondary trading exemptions are expanded.
- How the “innovation exemption” is scoped for funding portals.