@Kelly: Is it because you don't believe they raised the money, or you just want to know who is backing the project? If a large VC backed it (say, something like Google Ventures) would that make you less likely to use the platform?

I've got nothing against them for wanting some dough to see their idea through. I'm just a wee bit skeptical that they were able to raise $400k in a matter of that last 5 days. Because there is no unbiased 3rd party auditing the results, they have every reason make sure they reach their goal by any means possible.

If the team knew they were going to miss their goal, modifying a value in their database and keeping the money they had legitimately raised would be a lot easier than actually getting $400k pledged in a matter of 5 days.

I realize it's a harsh accusation on my part, but it's something that could be cleared up in a matter of minutes for backers that care.

I would have been more comfortable funding it if the project had a 3rd party monitoring the process from the beginning. For what it's worth, Caldwell did say that they'll have "impartial 3rd-party verification of results" here - daltoncaldwell.com

Cool, good for them.

I'm really excited to see how it all pans out. I'm highly skeptical it will ever reach significant numbers*, but I'd love to be proven wrong.

Significant numbers meaning breaking out beyond the technology enthousiast bubble, however large that may be. I.e. I can stop someone on the street and have a better than 50/50 chance they know what it is.

I must have loaded up the join page a dozen times in the last few days and it's not *just* the fee that's stopping me from pulling the trigger on signing up - there is something of a mental hurdle to overcome in understanding the dynamics of a paid (and therefore somewhat exclusive) social platform. I think that it would help to engender faith if a policy of openness is implemented from the beginning.

@Sam - thanks for pointing Dalton's blogpost out, it does seem like a step in a positive direction.

Dalton's post is as transparent as can be no? I hate that we have to be so pessimistic as to think that there may have been funny business going on.

I agree, that post is a positive thing, and obviously shows a concern for perceptions.

Like @adam I must have loaded the join page many (but not as many) times and even clicked the "Reserve an account" button before backing out.

The hold back for me is paying $50 per year for a product that is not anywhere near reaching v1 (based on looking at the alpha). And I just can't see enough people sighing up at that price to a service that might take 2 payments to reach a stable - usable - platform.

I'm also thinking of use cases. Might we be able to develop a closed social graph on the platform? Something that could be used within corporates? There are plenty of corporate friendly platforms out their - but none that allow you to purchase just the stream element.

Re: the late surge – I branched this earlier but will copy it on the main thread.

It happens all the time in crowdfunding. I've launched four Kickstarter campaigns (three failed, one successful), and have studied crowdfunding extensively.

A rush at the beginning is expected. Then campaigns go to a place where most die: the lull.

This is why Kickstarter recommends campaigns to be 30 days or less. It creates no sense of urgency when someone sees a campaign that's 15% funded with 45 days to go. At best, they bookmark it to check it out later, which leads to...

Hopefully, if you've created enough awareness about your campaign, people will start coming back in the final 3-5 days. App.net was getting a ton of coverage, so it's not crazy to think that helped a lot. The closer it inches towards the goal, the more people pile on. People want to be a part of it if it's going to be successful.

Here's an example of a recent Kickstarter campaign that was 75% funded with 24 hours to go ($375,000). They raised $183,863 in the last day. kickstarter.com

I think that App.net needs to introduce a freemium model anyway in order to achieve a critical mass.

@christoper, what elements could you cut from the premium edition in order to provide a meaningful "freemium" experience?

Remembering that you need people to keep paying and not down-grade.

Limited number of Following people, limited access to third party apps, posts not archived.

I think the "pay to access our API" is interesting, but it would only be successful if enough people paid for it in order to offset the cost of the free users.

And even then, I could see the paid users having some animosity towards the free users since they would see them more as freeloaders than as contributing users.