Something feels really off about a game that was crowdfunded being destroyed due to corporate mismanagement. In my mind, crowdfunding something should put a responsibility of acting in the...
Something feels really off about a game that was crowdfunded being destroyed due to corporate mismanagement. In my mind, crowdfunding something should put a responsibility of acting in the interest of the backers, and hence should not be run by a board and tanked by (I assume) profiteering at the expense of quality/success/etc. of the product.
In my opinion crowdfunding should not be treated as just another source of venture capital. Kickstarter projects are not presented as speculative investments and a collection of backers do not have the same power and ability to seek legal recourse that a investor would when mismanagement destroys a project before delivery.
I can't agree that it's not speculative. Prominently displayed on the first Kickstarter project I browsed to. Backers might not treat it as speculative, but I don't think they are being deceived...
I can't agree that it's not speculative.
Rewards aren’t guaranteed, but creators must regularly update backers.
Prominently displayed on the first Kickstarter project I browsed to. Backers might not treat it as speculative, but I don't think they are being deceived by the platform.
Speculative investment refers to the projects not being financial instruments, and it’s a very good point. If an investor puts money into a business, they have certain legal protections, have a...
Speculative investment refers to the projects not being financial instruments, and it’s a very good point. If an investor puts money into a business, they have certain legal protections, have a voice that can influence the company & could be in line for getting some compensation in case of bankruptcy. Kickstarter backers fulfil the same basic function (i.e. put money in a business) but get none of the legal protections.
Therefore, I agree that it does feel scummy for investors being allowed to profit from, and influence projects that started with, for all intents and purposes, free capital that others provided.
I don't know the first thing about this game and its financial woes, so I'll only speak in the abstract. Investors have only the rights they have the money to assert. In the UK at least filing a...
I don't know the first thing about this game and its financial woes, so I'll only speak in the abstract. Investors have only the rights they have the money to assert. In the UK at least filing a petition to go after a badly run company is going to run you at least a quarter mil with competent counsel and filing fees I think are sitting around £10k. So it doesn't really matter what legal protection an investor has if they can't afford to assert those protections in court or if the residual assets of the business don't cover costs.
I think in general people need to get away from Kickstarter because they are playing with things they lack the time and resources to understand and interact with wisely. I completely agree that if professional money has taken over the project and hasn't lost everything (at the cost of the original backers) that's some mega bullshit.
EDIT: at 10 years, they'd have needed to have spent $350k/yr to be entirely crowd-funded. Who else put their money in and how much? Looking at the size of the studio there is no way the crowd money was more than seed, which probably also explains why there is an adversarial relationship with a board that is probably composed of investors who put up most of the money and ran out of patience.
Entirely separate point: the founder is resigning in protest to board decisions. What is the composition of the board, does he have a board seat? What are his voting rights? Why did he cede...
Entirely separate point: the founder is resigning in protest to board decisions. What is the composition of the board, does he have a board seat? What are his voting rights? Why did he cede control of a company he founded to... people making decisions he can't agree with. How is it 10 years on from the announcement of the game and it's still apparently a buggy mess. Is the board also the fall guy for that? Perhaps they are scrambling to do anything within their power to keep the wheels turning, before the business can no longer reasonably continue on a going concern basis, all while the leadership team continues to fail to ship a working game. Now he (Mr Sharif) has thrown his toys out of the pram, taken the leadership team with him and realistically the game is dead, having never make it out of early access. I don't think the CEO can so easily escape judgement.
Of course, maybe I'm being too generous to the board, but I doubt anyone else is going to defend them here :)
Steven Sharif and his husband are the only named officers of Intrepid Studios in legal documents, and he's named as the sole director. In other words, he's full of shit and just did a rug pull....
From the top comment on that link, it sounds like that document doesn’t have to list all the directors. I’m no expert on the law in that state so I can’t vouch for its credibility but: Comment...
From the top comment on that link, it sounds like that document doesn’t have to list all the directors. I’m no expert on the law in that state so I can’t vouch for its credibility but:
Comment copied below for convenience.
—-
For educational purposes only, and in no way defending Intrepid....
What you have posted is Corporation Statement of Information that lists the key officers of a company. States have a requirement that corporation disclose three key officers in a company:
-Chief Executive (CEO, Director, President, or whatever other title your company choose to use for the top of the food chain. This is the person who has the ultimate end say in a company (where the buck stops))
-Chief Financial Officer (Which can also be in states as the Treasurer title, the person who is charged with managing the money and turning the paper trail over to the Secretary)
-Secretary (Record Keeper, the person who is charged with producing documents upon request)
The board of directors (or investors) may be listed on this sheet [if they hold officer titles] however, they do not have to be. There will be (assuming Intrepid has follow the diligence) a listing of all sales of stock, however, that is not a public record as Intrepid is not a publicly traded company.
I know for certain that the Ya-Ya Legacy Trust with M. Caramanis acting as trustee has 9.7% of the preferred stock of Intrepid.
I know there are lien holders who have filed UCCs with the State of California, and given how Intrepid structured the loan from Caramanis, it makes sense these other two individuals received shares of stock in lieu of repayment for some or all of their loans. This is pure speculation, however, as I have not seen their specific loan agreements.
I have been told, but unable to confirm, that Steven has not been self-funding the game, but instead has been diluting his controlling interest of stock and selling that to investors (5.0% of the Ya-Ya 9.7% was a single stock sell transaction)
Again, just for educational purposes only of what this sheet is meant to disclose and not in defense of Intrepid.
Something feels really off about a game that was crowdfunded being destroyed due to corporate mismanagement. In my mind, crowdfunding something should put a responsibility of acting in the interest of the backers, and hence should not be run by a board and tanked by (I assume) profiteering at the expense of quality/success/etc. of the product.
In my opinion crowdfunding should not be treated as just another source of venture capital. Kickstarter projects are not presented as speculative investments and a collection of backers do not have the same power and ability to seek legal recourse that a investor would when mismanagement destroys a project before delivery.
I can't agree that it's not speculative.
Prominently displayed on the first Kickstarter project I browsed to. Backers might not treat it as speculative, but I don't think they are being deceived by the platform.
Speculative investment refers to the projects not being financial instruments, and it’s a very good point. If an investor puts money into a business, they have certain legal protections, have a voice that can influence the company & could be in line for getting some compensation in case of bankruptcy. Kickstarter backers fulfil the same basic function (i.e. put money in a business) but get none of the legal protections.
Therefore, I agree that it does feel scummy for investors being allowed to profit from, and influence projects that started with, for all intents and purposes, free capital that others provided.
I don't know the first thing about this game and its financial woes, so I'll only speak in the abstract. Investors have only the rights they have the money to assert. In the UK at least filing a petition to go after a badly run company is going to run you at least a quarter mil with competent counsel and filing fees I think are sitting around £10k. So it doesn't really matter what legal protection an investor has if they can't afford to assert those protections in court or if the residual assets of the business don't cover costs.
I think in general people need to get away from Kickstarter because they are playing with things they lack the time and resources to understand and interact with wisely. I completely agree that if professional money has taken over the project and hasn't lost everything (at the cost of the original backers) that's some mega bullshit.
EDIT: at 10 years, they'd have needed to have spent $350k/yr to be entirely crowd-funded. Who else put their money in and how much? Looking at the size of the studio there is no way the crowd money was more than seed, which probably also explains why there is an adversarial relationship with a board that is probably composed of investors who put up most of the money and ran out of patience.
Entirely separate point: the founder is resigning in protest to board decisions. What is the composition of the board, does he have a board seat? What are his voting rights? Why did he cede control of a company he founded to... people making decisions he can't agree with. How is it 10 years on from the announcement of the game and it's still apparently a buggy mess. Is the board also the fall guy for that? Perhaps they are scrambling to do anything within their power to keep the wheels turning, before the business can no longer reasonably continue on a going concern basis, all while the leadership team continues to fail to ship a working game. Now he (Mr Sharif) has thrown his toys out of the pram, taken the leadership team with him and realistically the game is dead, having never make it out of early access. I don't think the CEO can so easily escape judgement.
Of course, maybe I'm being too generous to the board, but I doubt anyone else is going to defend them here :)
Steven Sharif and his husband are the only named officers of Intrepid Studios in legal documents, and he's named as the sole director.
In other words, he's full of shit and just did a rug pull. There is no "board of directors."
From the top comment on that link, it sounds like that document doesn’t have to list all the directors. I’m no expert on the law in that state so I can’t vouch for its credibility but:
Comment copied below for convenience.
—-
For educational purposes only, and in no way defending Intrepid....
What you have posted is Corporation Statement of Information that lists the key officers of a company. States have a requirement that corporation disclose three key officers in a company:
-Chief Executive (CEO, Director, President, or whatever other title your company choose to use for the top of the food chain. This is the person who has the ultimate end say in a company (where the buck stops))
-Chief Financial Officer (Which can also be in states as the Treasurer title, the person who is charged with managing the money and turning the paper trail over to the Secretary)
-Secretary (Record Keeper, the person who is charged with producing documents upon request)
The board of directors (or investors) may be listed on this sheet [if they hold officer titles] however, they do not have to be. There will be (assuming Intrepid has follow the diligence) a listing of all sales of stock, however, that is not a public record as Intrepid is not a publicly traded company.
I know for certain that the Ya-Ya Legacy Trust with M. Caramanis acting as trustee has 9.7% of the preferred stock of Intrepid.
I know there are lien holders who have filed UCCs with the State of California, and given how Intrepid structured the loan from Caramanis, it makes sense these other two individuals received shares of stock in lieu of repayment for some or all of their loans. This is pure speculation, however, as I have not seen their specific loan agreements.
I have been told, but unable to confirm, that Steven has not been self-funding the game, but instead has been diluting his controlling interest of stock and selling that to investors (5.0% of the Ya-Ya 9.7% was a single stock sell transaction)
Again, just for educational purposes only of what this sheet is meant to disclose and not in defense of Intrepid.