• Is Feed Resource Recovery an attractive opportunity? (Use concepts you've learned throughout the course on what factors define more attractive opportunities)
• What are alternative sources of funding Shan Eton can pursue to build the prototype? Given his situation at the time of the case, which are most likely attainable.

Case Wemder: Leading the Growth of a NewlnduyI In early 2018, Nick Tommarello could be proud of what he and his partners had accomplished. Their company, Wefunder, Inc., was the acknowledged leader in the equity crowdfund ing industry, an industry that he and his partners were largely responsible for creating. Wefunder served as an online portal for crowdfunding investments and had raised more money for more companies than any of their competitors. Yet Nick's pride and satisfaction with these accomplishments were tempered by the knowledge that neither his company, nor the industry as a whole, had achieved the volume and size he had origi- nally projected. Wefunder's careful vetting of the companies allowed to raise money on its site had created a reputation for quality, but the labor-intensiveness of this model was limiting the company's ability to scale up for growth. And the restrictive conditions imposed by federal law and the Securities and Exchange Commission's regulations on equity crowdfunding seemed to prohibit models of doing business deemed essential for the growth of the industry as a whole. If these challenges could not be met, Wefunder might well end up as one of many sh competing in an unfortunately small pond. Short Istary omewdmding Since the humble foundings of Indie gogo in 2007 and Kiclmtarter in 2009, online crowdfunding had exploded to nearly a $10 bil- lion dollar industry. lnitially a way for hobbyists, artists, and inventors to realize creative projects, the industry spawned dis- ruptive entrepreneurial ventures such as the Genius Ri' in 2012, a virtual reality headset ultimately sold to Facebook for $3 bil- lion, and The Pebble in 2013, the rst mass market smart watch. The disruptive power of crowdfunding had arrived, but only for nonequity commitments from backers where a simple prod- uct or thank you was promised in return for nancial support. The opportunity to actually invest in these companies was reserved by law generally to sophisticated, wealthy investors (\"accredited investors\") by a legal system founded on the prin- ciple of protecting the general public from excessive risk. Against this backdrop, Nick Tommarello, co-founder of Mfunder, an equity crowdfunding platform for nonaccredited investors, set out to disrupt the world of entrepreneurial nance. He remarked, \"I don't feel a sense of meaning when 1 buy a share of IBMit's purely a nancial transaction. But start-ups? 1 This case written by Erik Noyes and Richard Mandel. 2 Accredited investors are a special legal class of investors either having a net worth above $l million (excluding their personal home value) or with annual individual earnings above $200,000 or $300,000 for a couple. Accredited investors legally attest to their nancial strength and have special rights to speculate with certain types of risky investment given their ability to sustain investment losses and presumed nancial sophistication. Case If I could support entrepreneurs trying to change the world and still have a chance of earning a retum. . .well, that's value beyond money. I could give back. And that's the key to making crowd investing wor \" According to Nick, 'Wefunder is predicated upon the idea that anyone, regardless of wealth level, should be able to invest in a company.\" He and his co-founders Greg Belote and Mike Nomian wanted to ll the frequent funding gap for start-ups between angels and that rst major round of capital. In doing so, the three entrepreneurs would be engaging in "regulatory entrepreneurship,\" a form of entrepreneurship gain- ing recognition in the eld. As dened by Pollman and Barry, \"some companies pursue a line of business that has a legal issue at its corea signicant uncertainty regarding how the law will apply to a main part of the business operation, a need for new reg- ulations in order for products to be feasible or protable, or a legal restriction that prevents the long-tem'i operation of the business. For these entrepreneurs, political activity is generally a major component of their business models. Essentially, these companies are in the business of trying to change or shape the law.\"3 For Tommarello, Belote, and Norman, it meant working to shape the original \"JOBS ACT,\" ofcially known in the U.S. Congress as the 2012 Jumpstart Our Staring; Businesses Act. The Wefunder founders actually helped craft the Crowdfunding section of the JOBS Act that President Obama later signed into law. As such, they were invited by the White House to witness the signing of the JOBS Act into law, thus setting the stage for a new age of entrepreneurial nance. In signing the new legislation in the Rose Garden, Obama stated, \"Start-ups and small businesses will now have access to a big, new pool of potential investors. For the rst time, ordinary Americans will be able to go online and invest in entrepreneurs that they believe in\" (April 5, 2012). The JOBS ACT, with mles later released by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), allowed anyone to invest up to 5% of their annual income or net worth, whichever is higherup to $2,000 total per yearin start-ups, only through an online equity crowdfunding portal such as Wefunder. Those individuals with an annual income or net worth above $100,000 could invest up to 10% of annual income in a 12-month period not to exceed $100,000 in total. Securities purchased in this manner would be effectively nontransferable for a period of one year after purchase. Companies would be limited to raising no more than $1,000,000 per year in this manner. With the stroke of a pen, the new regulations created millions of new investors with the ability to make equity investments in entrepreneurial ventures but only through crowdfunding platforms. 3 Pullman and Barry, \"Regulatory Entrepreneurship," 90 S. Cal. L. Rev. 383, 392 (2017). 1 404 LEGAL AND TAX ISSUES, INCLUDING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY To temper investor expectations, however, the SEC listed a investment in the venture. Equity crowdfunding had existed number of potential hazards with equity crowdfunding (https:// before 2012 JOBS Act but only for accredited investors. Prior www.sec.gov/oiea/investor-alerts-bulletins/ib_crowdfunding- to the launch of Wefunder, there were portals serving angel html) including the limited disclosure that start-ups need to investor networks, or what Wefunder called "rich person share, the possibility of fraud, and the potential that a start- crowdfunding," which Wefunder also offered until nonac- up will fail. Equity crowdfunding for nonaccredited investors credited investor crowdfunding became legal. 4 introduced new possibilities, as well as new potential risks, for investors passionate to support entrepreneurs. The Global Scope of Crowdfunding Globally, an estimated 1,250 active crowdfunding platforms The Global Crowdfunding Industry (CFPs) compete in the categories of rewards-based crowd- Equity crowdfunding for nonaccredited investors was but one funding (Kickstarter, Indiegogo), donation crowdfunding of four primary types of crowdfunding driving the growth of the (GoFundMe, Patrion), lending crowdfunding (Lending Club, global industry. Kiva), and equity crowdfunding (Wefunder, StartEngine, Rewards-based crowdfunding: In rewards-based crowdfunding SeedInvest, Republic). According to the World Bank, the global (e.g., Kickstarter, Indiegogo) campaign "backers" receive no crowdfunding industry is expected to raise $93 billion annu- equity stake in a venture but rather a "thank you," generally a ally by 2025, or approximately 1.8 times the size of the global product, from the campaign creators ("creators" is Kickstarter's venture capital industry today, suggesting an opportunity to name for an individual or team that launches a campaign on the shake up existing models of entrepreneurial finance. Starting in Kickstarter platform). By aggregating funds on these types of 2011, Kickstarter raised more money for artists than the United platforms, hobbyists, artists, and inventors alike could know States' National Endowment for the Arts, or over $323 million. they had both funding and an audience in place for costly pro- To date, the global crowdfunding industry has transformed jects-in essence preselling new products, music CDs, or even notions of how artists, inventors, and entrepreneurs can bring events-before beginning production. The costs to raise funds new technologies and innovations to life. on such platforms are generally 9% of total funds raised with 5% going to the platform itself (e.g., Kickstarter) and 4% going Backer Motivations to a payments processor such as Stripe or Amazon Payments. Crowdfunding relies on backers-short-hand for financial backers-who support a particular project, product, person, or Donation crowdfunding: In a donation crowdfunding passion. While those creating failing campaigns may assume campaign (such as GoFundMe), backers support a worthy funds simply fall from the sky-a common misconception- cause or organization with a fundraising need. Donation those leading successful campaigns activate, or roll up, a network campaigns have been run to cover the costs of such items as of fans and followers, including friends, family, and customers. expensive medical procedures for the uninsured to emergency With rewards-based crowdfunding campaigns, like those on college costs. Costs to raise funds are generally less than with Kickstarter, backers support the entrepreneurial vision or prod- rewards-based crowdfunding and in some cases free uct development wishes shared by a project's Creator. More Lending crowdfunding: Lending crowdfunding engages crowds generally, backers support projects that reflect their unique inter- to make loans to individuals, offering financial returns (i.e., ests and values. Three varied such campaigns are as follows: interest) to backers, leveraging the borrower's social reputation Stompy: A successful $65,000 campaign to build a giant, and network. Examples of lending crowdfunding sites include truck-sized, 6-legged, rideable mechanized "insect" backed LendingClub, Upstart, and Funding Circle. The idea is to by amateur roboticists, science fiction enthusiasts, and engi- personalize lending as differentiated from a loan made by bank neers. https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/projecthexapod/ or professional lender, and costs to the borrower vary. However, stompy-the-giant-rideable-walking-robot-0/description. since all but short-term loans qualify as securities under the law, prior to the JOBS Act, the opportunities to make such The Pebble Watch: A successful $10 million dollar campaign loans were also essentially limited to accredited investors. to build the world's first mass market smart watch, beating companies such as Samsung and Apple to establish this new Equity crowdfunding: In equity crowdfunding, the focus of technology category. The campaign was backed by fans of Wefunder's business model, backers acquire an equity stake in the venture raising funds. Portals charge a percentage of funds raised, on average 4-5%, plus a fee to the investors. 4 Equity crowdfunding like that offered by WeFunder had in fact established The issuer or venture is responsible to disclose a valuation an earlier footprint in Europe, with such platforms as CrowdCube, Seed- Match, and Seedrs. Seedrs.com alone had raised 100 million British pounds for the company, thus enabling the backer to value his or her on its platform since February, 2016.Case 405 emerging wearable computing technologies and other tech- patience and support in the face of delays if the project creator nophiles. https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/getpebble/ is transparent about unforeseen challenges. Backers can also be pebble-e-paper-watch-for-iphone-and-android/description. merciless and turn on creators taking to comment boards, or FlowHive: A successful $13 million dollar campaign to create even trolling campaigns for years after failure, if creators are an innovative new beehive design/honey-harvesting process seen as inept or deceptive. Crowds giveth and crowds taketh targeting amateur beekeepers who understand the pain and away-which speaks to the deep personal nature of backing and mess of traditional methods of honey-making. https://www. trust between the backers and creators. indiegogo.com/projects/flow-hive-honey-on-tap-directly- Backers most commonly are family and friends, thus the from-your-beehive-environment-5#/. expression "no network, no funding." Just after Wefunder launched, Nick commented, "Investors who use the site are Each of the examples above illustrate that successful cam- largely friends or followers of the business itself." However, paigns target specific target backers and subcultures (e.g., robot- certain campaigns break-out and capture the popular imagina- icists, wearable computing enthusiasts, amateur beekeepers). tion, in some cases raising millions of dollars. At the time of the Backers back campaigns because: writing of this case, Kickstarter has seen over 300 $1+ million Often they have family and friendship relationships with the dollar campaigns (https://www.kickstarter.com/help/stats). crowdfunding campaign leaders. To date, it is unclear whether the rise of the equity crowdfund- ing sector threatens rewards-based crowdfunding by adding the They want to see the creation of a new innovation in their possibility of "earning a return" on backers' monies. Alterna- particular passion or interest area. tively, rewards-based crowdfunding motivators (e.g., exuberance They value the connection with the project creator and for the projects and the desire for vicarious participation-and particularly the opportunity to participate-at least vicari- even physical rewards) may be equally important in equity crowd- ously, but sometimes directly-in the journey to realize the funding, suggesting a likely hybridization of motives and methods. innovation, including project updates. Wefunder's Planning for Growth They want to receive the final product, deliverable or experi- ence promised by the project creator at a discounted or pro- Nick and his co-founders knew all too well the potential risks motional price. of bringing equity crowdfunding to the masses. Investors would have to be educated about very real risks and their expectations As Yancey Strickler, co-founder of Kickstarter, once would need to be managed very carefully. Equity crowdfunding famously said, "Kickstarter is not a store!" The decision to could not be promoted as a get-rich-quick scheme for inves- back a project does not guarantee the delivery of a final product tors, but instead as a new way to make small investments in two days later as with an order on Amazon. Each project has businesses you know and love-ones launched by your friends real risks-which project creators are required to disclose on or right in your own neighborhood. their project page-and over 75% of rewards have been shown As seen on the company's home page, Wefunder's managed to be delivered late to backers.' Backers can show extreme this message carefully: WEFUNDER Invest in Startups You Love Keep the American Dream alive. Back founders solving the probl you care about and help their startups grow SIGN UP TO START INVESTING E. Mollick (2014). The dynamics of crowdfunding: an exploratory study, " https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/03/magazine/zpm-espresso-and-the-rage- Journal of Business Venturing, vol. 29, iss. 1. of-the-jilted-crowdfunder.html?_r=0LEGAL AND TAX ISSUES, INCLUDING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Invest for the Right Reasons sum is IIAIVIM'IM Invest in Your Local Community \"a w fl: Iunimmm Participation with the potential for protsbut not wealth was the value proposition. Your fellow engineering PhD. student developed a new technologysupport her to commercialize it. Your favorite small-batch whiskey distillery wants to expand regionallysupport the founder's dream and let others know how amazing the whiskey is. However, there were broader ambitions too, as stated on the Wefunder website: \"Let's revitalize capitalism and keep the American dream alive. GDP is slowing. Wealth inequality is rising. Entrepreneurship is dying across America; falling from 10.6% to 3.6.% among those under 30 since I 989. We aim to reverse these trends by funding more deserving businesses. Our goal is to build a new type of stock market ( a NASDAQ for riskier ventures) that lets markets allocate capital to a wide range of businesses more e'iciently than banks or VCs.\" "@mder Does a Mistkstop Tour Amoss America With a priority to drive entrepreneurial communitynot just nancial returnsNick and his team sought to build deal ow and identify high-quality initial campaigns for the platform. The conviction was that strong campaigns and demonstrably- capable entrepreneurs would distinguish Wefunder from other equity crowdfunding platforms with little personal interest and research into their rst issuers. Wefunder co-founder Greg Belote commented, \"Our vision was always to help fund a cross-section of the economy in 'real America'not just Silicon Valleyso our entire company hopped on a train and met hundreds of business owners across America, 12 cities in two weeks, coast to coast.\" The message was fairly straightforward: \"Out-oftouch bankers on Wall Street don't take any risks for Main Street! Let's recreate a world where friends and local communities can invest in their neighbors.\" Case Wefunder is taking Amtrak across America to fund more businesses Wemder website Fellow Wefunder cofounder Mike Norman summed it up, \"The majority of entrepreneurs are not web-tech focused businesses in the Bay Area, so it was important for us to get out there, meet folks on the ground, hear people's issues and challenges and what they're building in places like Fargo and Chicago and Pittsburgh and Providence... We found some great companies to feature for our big launch.\" When the launch date nally came, Wefunder launched with 20 companies, which ultimately raised nearly $3 million, including a donut shop, whiskey maker, a biotech company, and a Chicago entrepreneur looking to launch an African American culinary district. Nick told Crowdfund Insider, \"People are going to be surprised by the quality of companies that decide to use Regulation Crowdfunding on May 16 [2016],\" the rst day that the new type of equity crowdfunding became legal. Fast forward to the date of the writing of this case, and Wefunder has raised over $31 million for 90 different com- panies through equity crowdfunding, and was the most success- ful portal in the industry, \"leading the pack both in the number of deals and total dollars raised\"1 (see Appendix A: Sample Wefunder Offerings). It is almost overwhelmed by the number of companies seeking to be listed on the portal and the chal- lenges of scaling the high-touch vetting and listing process, which has led to its success. Yet, the number of companies using equity crowdfunding and the amount of money raised through equity crowdfunding portals are signicantly less than initial projections. T https :i'fvenmrebeamom 1710511enquiry-cmwdrunding-is- 1 -year-old- tq:w:].=1y-wefunder-is-mp-lznlatformir (accessed December 7, 2017). Nick and his partners recognized that the new industry was becoming crowded with other platforms entering, so it sought to differentiate Wefunder by encouraging and enabling investors to build relationships with entrepreneurs, and as Nick stated, \"help start-ups beyond the funding moment.\" Equity investors could provide vital product feedback and network contacts, comment on a venture's overall strategy, and even evangelize. As Nick's cofounder Mike Norman explained, \"Wefunder really wants to build long term relationships between founders and investors.\" Wefunder also sought to differentiate itself from other plat- forms by enabling investors to become part of investment clubs and follow lead investors. One of the founders' key values driving the creation of Wefunder (beyond giving everyone the opportunity to invest in start-ups) was that the idea that informed experts make better investment decisions than inves- tors alone. \"We believe in the wisdom of the crowd guided by n industry expe , said Mike Norman. He continues, \"If we allow crowd investors, experts, and fans to collaborate effec- tively we can allocate capital to deserving new businesses more efciently than traditional investing.\" But, there were also legal obstacles to such an approach (captured in the discussion of Special Purpose Vehicles below), so some further regulatory entrepreneurship would be needed. Challenges Remaining with the [OBS Ant and Equity Crowdmdingbidustry Although the JOBS Act and the subsequent SEC regulations went a long way toward facilitating this new method of crowd- funding ventures, in the view of Nick and others in the industry, the law still contained key shortcomings, which would have the effect of drastically limiting the potential for growth. The most 408 serious of these shortcomings is derived from a failure to address the problems inherent in ventures with a large number of small equity holders. These problems fall into two main categories. The rst set of problems result from the provisions of Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1934 (\"the 34 Act\"). Although the Securities Act of 1933 enacted a comprehensive system of disclosures for companies issuing securities, it did not require any follow-up disclosures for the benet of any secondary market, which might arise in such securities. Thus, without additional follow-on disclosures, investors buying and selling securities on a stock exchange would be essentially ying blind. The 34 Act remedied this by requiring publicly traded com- panies to register with the SEC and create and le a series of regular disclosure documents, including quarterly reports, two types of annual reports, and proxy statements, as well as reports and press releases for any of a series of signicant events. It also established serious penalties for failure to disclose and misrep- resentations. This, of course, begs the question of the denition of a pub- licly traded company. Section 12(g) of the 34 Act includes any company that has done a registered public offering but also, in its present form, any company with 2,000 or more shareholders (or 500 or more unaccredited shareholders) and more than $10 million in assets. Obviously, a company successfully com- pleting an equity crowdfunding offering quickly risks exceeding the 500 unaccredited investor limit, exposing itself to the highly complex and expensive reporting requirements of the 34 Act as well as its potential liabilities. The SEC's crowdfunding rules attempted to address this problem by exempting issuers from registering under the 34 Act, even if they exceed the allowable number of shareholders, so long as they have less than $25 million in assets. Once a company exceeds the $25 million dollar limit, they will have a two-year grace period before having to register with the SEC. Thus, a successful crowdfunded company could be on track for 34 Act registration and its attendant liabilities and disclo- sure obligations. As such, Nick and most of the crowdfunding industry would prefer a clean exemption under which crowd- funded shares simply do not count against the Section 12(g) limits. Such an exemption is included in the omnibus Financial Choice Act (designed mostly to address alleged shortcomings in the Dodd-Frank Act) passed by the U.S. House of Represen- tatives in June of 2017 and sent to a very uncertain fate in the Senate, as well as in standalone bills previously passed in the House and in a bill proposed to the Senate. But, this problem remains unresolved as of this writing. Second, the existence of potentially hundreds or thousands of individual small stockholders presents a legal and recordkeep- ing nightmare for most issuers. Under various state corporate LEGAL AND TAX ISSUES, INCLUDING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY laws, stockholders may have rights to inspect records, attend stockholders' meetings, receive distributions, etc. \"Without incurring the expense of a professional transfer agent and estab- lishing a stockholder services infrastructure, most crowdfunded companies would be unable to keep up with their obligations in this regard. Just keeping up with securities transfers and address changes could be overwhelming. And this, in turn, would likely scare off potential later round investors who much prefer \"clean\" cap tables. Nick and much of the crowdfunding industry advocate the use of Special Purpose Funds (or Special Purpose Vehicles, \"SPVs\") to solve this problem. An SPV would be an entity fom'ied for the purpose of investing in one crowdfunded company and would be managed by its ofcers or, in some cases, the relevant funding portal. Investors would invest in the SPV, not the crowdfunded company, so the crowdfunded company would have only one additional stockholder of record (the SPV). The manager of the SPV would handle the crowdfunding compliance and recordkeeping requirements of the SPV. Unfortunately, such an SPV would likely qualify as an investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, which regulates companies whose assets are largely securities of other companies. The cost and complexity of com- pliance with the Investment Company Act are substantial. And worse, the SEC regulations prohth investment companies from using crowdfunding to raise money, thus making the SPV solu- tion to this problem illegal. Legislation exempting crowdfunded SPVs from the Investment Company Act is viewed as essential by the industry, but as of this writing, no such legislation has been passed. It is not included in the (likely doomed) Financial Choice Act but was included in standalone bills passed by the House and a bill proposed to the Senate. In the meantime, many crowdfunding portals advocate the o'ering of altematives to formal equity, such as debt. One increasingly popular form of crowdfunded security is the Simple Agreement for Future Equity (often misleadingly referred to as \"SAFE\"). This is an instrument that converts into actual equity at the time of, and on the same terms of, a future round of investment such as venture capital deal or upon a liquidity event such as a sale of the company or IPO. It addresses the administrative and state law issues created by having large num- bers of small stockholders, but doesn't address the remainder of the challenges described above, such as the registration require- ments of Section 12(g). Finally, notwithstanding the careful management of investor expectations contained in most equity crowdfunding websites, it is fair to assume that some portion of crowdfunding backers (those motivated mainly by hope of return on investment) will Appendix A 409 become frustrated and angry upon discovering that they are business model, and how to maintain a commanding lead in the effectively locked in to an uncertain, long-term investment in the industry, which was seeing new entrants. The prospect of wel- absence of any meaningful secondary market for their shares. coming millions of people to fund innovative, entrepreneurial Such frustration might be directed against the issuing company ventures and help reboot the U.S. economy in the process was and its founders, or even the portals themselves. This problem, enticing but there were several high hurdles ahead. it seems, can be addressed only by creation of a secondary Discussion Questions market once the one-year holding period for crowdfunded secu- rities has expired, but the question is will Wefunder or any of 1. What is regulatory entrepreneurship? its competitors see this as one of the ways to increase the size 2. Given that equity crowdfunding industry growth is much of their business? In summary, a complex and uncertain legal lower than anticipated, what should Wefunder's immediate landscape complicated the overall growth and development of and longer term strategy be? Relatedly, in your view, what the equity crowdfunding industry. competitive actions will separate winners from losers in this new industry? The Road Ahead 3. How, if at all, will the emergence of crowdfunding impact In a round-up of the first year of equity crowdfunding, one angels and venture capitalists? analyst wrote, "Wefunder got out of the gate strong, but 4. In what cases should an entrepreneur consider-and not can it stand up to the portals that have deep-pocket VCs consider-equity crowdfunding? How should equity behind them?" crowdfunding be evaluated and compared to other sources Nick and his co-founders grappled with strategic questions of capital? such as how to lead and grow the industry overall, how to enlarge 5. How are backer motivations similar-and different-when the current entrepreneurial opportunity by lobbying Congress comparing rewards-based crowdfunding versus equity and the SEC, how to scale their currently labor-intensive crowdfunding? Appendix A Sample Wefunder Offerings Industry: Craft Beer Y FOLLOW US FOR UPDATES UPDATES 234 FOLLOWERS HOPS AND GRAIN Gold Medal winning craft brewery in Austin, Texas Hops & Grain is a local Texas brewery. We brew and package all of our beers on site and sell them throughout Austin and the surrounding areas. After 5 years of expansion in our current facility, we have finally reached max capacity and are now looking to double our capacity with a new ZOE GREEN brewery. The investment will be in a new LLC to develop the new tap room and brewery in San Marcos, TX. Josh Hare CEO. HOPS AND GRAIN OUR AMBITION $1,000,000 raised from $55 investors Since Day : our goal has been to craft high quality beers that tell a compelling story Successfully Funded on Aug 13 2016 Amount Raised: $1,000,000 Terms: Annual payments of a percentage of gross revenue Date Closed: August 13, 2016 until twice the invested amount has been repaid. Number of Investors: 55 Industry: Home Server (replacing "the cloud")FOLLOW US FOR UPDATES I SHARE # TWEET 10 UPDATES BSI FOLLOWERS DAPLIE Connect Without "The Cloud" "The cloud" is just someone else's computer. When you use centralized cloud services like :Cloud, Gmail, Google Drive, Dropbox, Box, Facebook, or hundreds of others, you gain the convenience of storing data on someone else's computer, but you make some huge tradeoffs in return. Daplie provides a platform for people to have the convenience of the cloud without giving up privacy and ownership of their data. At Daplie, we believe the Internet was made for people, not people for the Internet. Cory Torgesen CHIEF SALES OFFICER, DARLIE $500,000 raised from 637 investors OUR AMBITION Successfully Funded on Apr 1 2017 Amount Raised: $500,000 Number of Investors: 637 Date Closed: April 1, 2017 Terms: Class A Common Stock