Thanks for the question. Quick disclaimer: this is just my own personal preference and experience, this is not to be construed as investment advice! Each investor has their own reasons and criteria when investing, so you need to determine what that looks like for you.

When personally picking a company to invest in, for me, it comes down to two primary things:

1. Does it match my investment thesis (e.g. my "why" for investing - whether it's a company I am passionate about, a market I think will be huge, a technology that I believe could change the world), and

2. Due diligence - e.g. are there any red flags? Are the deal terms fair? etc.

For point one: I recommend investors reflect on the reasons they are investing and what they want to achieve. Are you only looking to maximize financial returns? Do you care about social impact? Are you trying to support local small businesses? 

For point two: personally, I follow a "5 T's" approach to due diligence. Due diligence is a topic that could fill volumes by itself, but you can read more about due diligence in two articles I wrote and videos I made:

Due Diligence Part 1 - https://crowdwise.org/crowd-investing-101/due-diligence-101-overview-for-crowdfunding-investors-part-1/

Due Diligence Part 2 - https://crowdwise.org/crowd-investing-101/due-diligence-101-part-2-the-1-reason-why-startups-fail-and-how-to-screen-deals/

There are also services out there that will aggregate and review deals to help investors scale their due diligence, such as KingsCrowd (disclaimer: I am currently VP of Product at KingsCrowd).

And ultimately, you should always go to the campaign page and read all the details, including all deal terms. Another gem of information on these pages are the investor Q&A sections. You can not only post your own questions to be answered by the founder, but you can read other insightful questions from potential investors of all backgrounds. 

I always read the Q&A. You can learn a lot about the company and how they communicate and handle tough questions.

Happy investing!

Thanks!

Yes, you can solicit as to what terms people might find attractive, including valuation. I would generally include a disclaimer of some kind saying that just because something has been suggested it doesn't mean that will be reflected in the deal terms if you eventually make an offering.

Sara

Both valid comments, there are a few quick answers to make the severity of these problems perhaps less worrisome: 

1) the average investment in a successful crowdfunding campaign is only $96. So, the real risk vis a vis the founder's self-proclaimed valuation is not only mitigated by this average, but there are also caps on how much a retail investor can invest annually in crowdfunding. For instance, anyone earning under $107,000 annually, can only commit $2200 or so. 5% of their annual income. I'd say there are far more dangerous "investments" people make with far more predictably bad outcomes (hamburgers?).

2) as to how to know if other, potentially better, candidates for your money are making similar solutions available to investors, that's always hard to say, but I'd say you might reconcile "Caveat Emptor" dictates responsibility in both of these questions: "the principle that the buyer alone is responsible for checking the quality and suitability of goods before a purchase is made."

So, do your homework. I mean, you' wouldn't buy a house sight-unseen without looking over the neighborhood, checking out the schools, etc.

Great questions. Keep em comin'

TLDR;  "Fees & Fines"

FINRA is a purportedly not-for-profit membership based organization but their Revenue and Expenses are not easily discernible, at least not in public sources like CharityNavigator:

https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/521959501

FINRA likely generates the vast majority of its income from membership fee's that include a percentage of funds placed through the member firm.  It's easy to guess that Goldman Sachs is the largest contributor here and your average funding portal is not.

We could probably get a good guesstimate based on the number of member firms, states registered in, and the public bragging FINRA does about the fines it levies, though the vast majority of those fines are likely procedurally levied and privately not disclosed unless you scoured the public accounting of the member firms and see if they reported them in their expenses.

FINRA also manages the Central Registration Depository or CRD (aka brokercheck) and likely gets some funding from federal and state regulators to prop it up.  Ironically the OTC reporting facility is managed by NASDAQ, thus forcing firms to pay a minimum of $500/month to a "competitor" for the privilege of supplying trade data to FINRA.

Expenses could also likely be surmised based on the number of locations

https://www.finra.org/about/locations

likely rents and on the number of employees (3,600) and the average salary information which is disclosed in their rotating job posts that constantly need filling due to the high turn over rates.  See Glassdoor for former employee sentiment:

https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/FINRA-Reviews-E108071.htm

With the year over year decline for over a decade in the number of registered reps and broker-dealers it is just a matter of time before the organization will be forced to downsize, as it is now there are more employees at FINRA than there are firms to monitor:

https://www.thinkadvisor.com/2021/05/25/number-of-registered-reps-falls-for-fifth-straight-year-finra/

Your average funding portal contributes about $2,200 per year and napkin math based on the number of registered portals in good standing suggests that they probably all combined contribute a maximum of $250,000 year to the top line -- even if we generously doubled it to $500K it is clear that funding portal operations is likely losing money for the organization based on the composition and likely compensation of that group. 

It is certainly true of the vast majority of broker-dealers of which some numbers suggest that up to 90% of the membership base are "small member firms" which has lead some current and former members suggesting that you'll get better treatment at your DMV than you will as an average member firm.

Most of the problems FINRA has it creates for itself, and could likely be solved with two simple changes to their operating and membership agreements:

1. Provide Model Documents for their member firms, and
2. Establish Service Level Agreements

Things I have long publicly advocated.

There is certainly room for a competitor SRO in the US, and one likely based on a cooperative model where the actual costs of operations are disclosed and fee's apportioned to members based on actual usage.  Your local power company, for example, is ALSO a licensed monopoly but must obtain approval from the granting authority to set or raise rates.

At the end of the day, the SEC cannot simply offer us "choice" in the form of "do you want it or not" -- especially given the arbitrary and capricious manner in which FINRA unequally enforces the rules.  The two items I called out above would go a long way to curing that and improving member relations.

-dvd

Yes!  It is amazing how common it is for founders to publicly pitch investments in their companies.  This is not always illegal.  There are some securities exemptions under which this is allowed (e.g. Regulation Crowdfunding (but with some limitations) and Rule 506(c)).  But most founders have not consciously chosen a securities exemption so they may inadvertently be breaking the law.

Here is a breakdown from KingsCrowd for the most popular security types for Regulation Crowdfunding (Reg CF) in 2022 so far:

As the figures show, the most popular security types in Reg CF in 2022 are:

1. SAFE (Simple Agreement for Future Equity) - $128.8M, 41%

2. Equity (Common) - $114.7M, 36%

3. Equity (Preferred) - $55.4M, 17%

4. Convertible Note - $17.9M, 6%

One can see that the type of security offered also various by platform, as platforms tend to prefer (or avoid) certain financial instruments. 

For example, SAFEs are the most popular on Republic and Wefunder, while StartEngine is primarily Equity (Common).

For more details on security types in equity crowdfunding deals and their differences, check out the article I wrote here:

https://crowdwise.org/crowd-investing-101/part-4-deal-types-equity-crowdfunding/

Glad to learn of your interest in regulated investment crowdfunding (#RIC).

Yes, there are a few upcoming events in the space ... 

SuperCrowd22 will include a Who's Who in regulated crowdfunding and will examine the intersection of crowdfunding and impact investing. It is a web-based event being co-hosted by the Crowdfunding Professional Association (CfPA), Brainsy, and many other impactful organizations September 15-16 (registration link is here: https://www.supercrowd22.com/httpssupercrowd22comtextandpercent20otherpercent20experts-register-joinpercent20thepercent20supercrowd ) For more info, follow up with Devin Thorpe

Equity Crowdfunding Week is another event that takes place a week later in person in LA (September 21-23) or online - https://www.startupstarter.co/ecw For more info, follow up with Etan Butler

Silicon Prairie Crowdfunding often hosts webinars on Wednesdays on various topics related to crowdfunding (for beginners to experienced hands) and you can see a list of their events at: https://www.meetup.com/silicon-prairie-fundraising For more info, follow up with David Duccini 

Stay tuned on the CfPA ECO as CfPA often hosts events or promotes the events of members organizations.