The Conversion Code: What Actually Moves Global Investors from Interest to Investment

A Strategic Analysis of Expert Insights from GECA’s “Architects of Change” Panel Discussion Paper for Industry Consultation

This paper synthesizes insights from GECA’s “Architects of Change” conversion panel (Moderator: Scott McIntyre; Panelists: Jason Fishman, Sarah Hardwick, Claudio Grimoldi). It examines data-driven conversion strategies, cross-border investor behavior, and education models that move investors from curiosity to commitment. This is a discussion document- not GECA policy -and the ideas here are offered for consultation and working-group debate.

Executive Summary

Despite unprecedented access to private-market deals, the global equity crowdfunding ecosystem still struggles with the conversion gap - turning attention into actual investments. The panel’s perspectives converge on three levers that consistently move the needle:

  • Culture matters. Investment frequency, risk tolerance, and instrument preferences vary sharply by region; a one-size-fits-all funnel underperforms.
  • Data must lead. High-velocity campaigns make conversion a measurement problem: identify intent signals, test creative/placement by market, and allocate spend to what converts.
  • Trust is earned. Authentic founder visibility and concise, candid education outperform generic promotion. “Without enforcement, [transparency is] just marketing by another name,” cautioned Scott McIntyre.

All statistics and figures cited below are direct statements from panelists during the session and should be treated as preliminary observations pending external validation.

Key findings (from panel insights)

  • Cultural investment patterns diverge. In Italy, just 1.18% of investors make more than ten investments; ~90% make one or two in their lifetime (per Claudio Grimoldi citing a national study).
  • Funnel drop-off is structural. Even strong “intent” cohorts convert at modest rates, reinforcing the need for behavioral signals and retargeting (per Jason Fishman).
  • Founder-centric decisions dominate. Retail investors routinely cite CEOs by first name and invest on the strength of the person and narrative - as much as the numbers (Fishman/Hardwick).
  • Regulatory fragmentation raises costs. Cross-border raises face exponential complexity; creative structures (e.g., reward-hybrids) sometimes achieve participation without full equity portability (Grimoldi).
  • Education closes the gap. Webinars and long-form content reliably lift conversion; some campaigns have raised $1M+ in 24 hours (Fishman).

Strategic recommendations (for consultation, not adoption)

  • Develop market-specific conversion tactics rather than “Global/EU/US” blobs.
  • Treat founder authenticity as a conversion asset - train for it, measure it.
  • Use education as infrastructure - short primers, risk explainers, webinars - measured against completion and conversion.
  • Clarify liquidity realities; don’t conflate tokenization/synthetic instruments with true investor protections.
  • Pilot values-based targeting (sustainability, innovation, local impact) that travels better across borders than pure demographics.

The Cultural Investment Behavior Divide

A central theme was the non-uniformity of global investors. Claudio Grimoldi shared Italian data: “They are highlighting how just the 1.18% [of investors] are doing serially those type of investments, like more than 10… 90% of them are just doing one or two investments in their life - 75% once, 15% twice.” That reality rewrites funnel math: instead of compounding with repeat investors, platforms must re-acquire first-timers each cycle.

By contrast, Jason Fishman routinely meets U.S. retail investors who “reference the CEO by their first name as if they know them” and track multiple issuers across StartEngine, Wefunder, and DealMaker. The operational implication is stark: education, messaging, and trust-building must be tuned for first-time investors in some regions and for serial investors elsewhere.

The Lending vs. Equity Preference

Northern Europe, particularly the Netherlands, shows a strong lending bias. “They are completely into lending crowdfunding… ~99.9% lending,” noted Grimoldi, pointing to nine-figure volumes in short windows. Why? Perceived certainty and cash-flow visibility. “You can see your capital gain getting back to your wallet compared to a startup.”

For equity platforms expanding in these markets, conversion depends on reframing value: explain time horizons, portfolio sizing, and partial-liquidity pathways (where available) without overselling. Reward-hybrid structures (BrewDog’s “beer for shares” example) can bridge expectations while remaining culturally resonant.

The Serial vs. One-Time Investor Challenge

Where 90% of investors are one-and-done, the CAC/LTV equation changes. Tactics shift from lifetime nurturing to first-touch clarity:

  • Frictionless orientation (5-minute primers on the raise, instrument, risks).
  • Founder proofs up front (track record, weekly micro-updates, AMAs).
  • Local proof points (press, customers, advisors) to substitute for missing familiarity.

The aim: compress time-to-trust without compromising disclosure quality.

Data-Driven Conversion Architecture

“I like to picture it as a funnel… awareness, consideration, intent… big drop-offs before conversion,” said Jason Fishman. The remedy is instrumentation and iteration:

  • Behavioral signals. “This person moved from the offering page to checkout… from an ad to a form to a webinar… engaged with three emails.” Those markers define in-market audiences for remarketing and SDR outreach.
  • Competitive intelligence. “What were the top five campaigns to date in Italy or Germany? What did their pitch video, page, and investor reviews emphasize?” Use those clues to localize creative and media plans.
  • Variant strategy. “Don’t buy ‘Global’ or ‘Europe.’ Run market variants across 5–10 audience clusters, see what performs, then lean in.”

Principle: assume less, measure more, and let the budget follow the data.

Authenticity and Transparency: Trust That Converts

In a noisy environment, Sarah Hardwick argued, the way through is candor:

“Start with that one-to-one relationship where you’re really being honest about the ups and downs… there’s a tendency to sugarcoat… but bring investors along through the journey, the triumphs and the tribulations.”

Her experience as CMO of Aptera - helping raise $140M - underscored how real founders move real capital: “The two founders became a huge part of the story… they were very authentic and themselves. That really resonated.” Fishman echoed the red flag of faceless teams: “If there’s not a picture of the founder… I immediately turn the page.”

Takeaway: founder visibility, steady updates, honest risk language, and responsive Q&A are not “nice-to-have” - they’re conversion levers.

Education as Conversion Infrastructure

“I love webinars. They’re an anchor to content marketing,” said Fishman - citing 24-hour windows with $1M+ raised. Why they work:

  • Before/During/After marketing. Registration pipelines prime intent; live/social proof validates; follow-ups close.
  • Third-party credibility. Advisors, customers, and investors lend trust in real time.
  • Format flexibility. Digital or hybrid events scale reach; in-person deepens conviction. “The best deals were done at dinner,” added Grimoldi, urging issuers to translate online momentum into physical touchpoints.

The content stack that supports this: short-form social and email to drive discovery; long-form articles and videos to lift comprehension; and event programming to consolidate trust and catalyze decisions.

Cross-Border Regulatory Navigation

Europe’s ECSPR promised a common umbrella; practice is messier. “We are under the same law… but Germany are like, ‘no’… it’s a pretty mess,” said Grimoldi. Add language, entity, and tax differences and you get exponential, not additive complexity.

Workarounds sometimes win the day - e.g., BrewDog-style reward-hybrids, or forming a local entity (GmbH/SARL) to meet investor expectations. But market relevance still rules: “You need to be relevant to the market itself… an Italian customer story may not move a U.S. investor,” Grimoldi warned.

Technology & AI: Useful, With Guardrails

Sarah Hardwick uses AI-assisted sentiment analysis to mine reviews and community chatter:

“Beyond clicks and conversion, I’m digging into the words people use, who they’re talking to, and why.”

Fishman emphasized systematizing optimization - letting analytics show which markets and messages pull—but the panel warned against over-automating relationships. McIntyre: “Without enforcement, transparency is just marketing by another name.” Human oversight and clear disclosures keep tech from eroding the very trust it’s meant to scale.

Five Core Conversion Challenges (for consultation)

  1. Cultural pattern variation Design funnels for one-time markets versus serial markets; reset benchmarks accordingly.
  2. Authenticity at scale Teach and measure founder communication without making it feel manufactured.
  3. Cross-border complexity Balance creative structures and compliance clarity; avoid “paper portability” that confuses investors.
  4. Education ROI Resource the formats that demonstrably lift conversion; measure consumption-to-completion links.
  5. Values-based targeting Use universal values (sustainability, innovation, local impact) to cross borders, then localize proof.

Areas for Collaborative Industry Exploration (non-prescriptive)

1) Conversion Measurement & Benchmarks

Questions:

  • What stage definitions (e.g., MQL → Investment Start → Investment Complete) best reflect cross-border journeys?
  • How should benchmarks differ in 90% one-time markets vs serial markets?

Hypotheses to test:

  • Consuming educational content within 7 days of first touch materially improves completion.
  • Founder AMAs correlate with higher Investment Complete rates.

2) Educational Infrastructure

Questions:

  • Which lightweight formats (5-minute primers; risk explainers; unit-economics explainers) best convert first-timers by region?
  • Where can neutral, co-produced investor education live without disadvantaging competition?

Hypotheses to test:

  • Ultra-short mandatory micro-education does not depress conversion if relevance is high.
  • 20-minute, single-theme webinars outperform 60-minute deep dives for first-time investors.

3) Trust & Transparency Signals

Questions:

  • Which plain-language risk sections (“What Could Go Wrong”) improve understanding without scaring off qualified investors?
  • Which objective indicators (update cadence, third-party verification) predict investor confidence?

Hypotheses to test:

  • Clearer risk sections improve question quality without reducing conversion.
  • Local compliance/registration badges increase cross-border completions.

4) Cultural Adaptation & Values

Questions:

  • Which values (sustainability, innovation, local impact) travel best?
  • How to localize narratives while keeping the core story intact?

Hypotheses to test:

  • Values-led prospecting beats pure demographic targeting for discovery across borders.
  • Local proof points (media, customers) are decisive for first-time investors.

5) Liquidity, Tokenization & Secondary Markets

Questions:

  • What investor education is required to set realistic expectations around company-controlled liquidity windows?
  • How should the industry clearly separate tokenized equity (with disclosures) from synthetic/mirror instruments?

Hypotheses to test:

  • Explicit liquidity education reduces post-investment churn and support load.
  • Instrument clarity protects trust without suppressing interest.

Cross-Border Prompts & Checkpoints (issuer self-assessment; not recommendations)

Structure & compliance clarity

  • Is there a local entity investors recognize (e.g., GmbH in Germany)?
  • Are ECSPR/passport statuses explained simply?
  • Are tax basics presented in accessible FAQs?

Cultural adaptation

  • Has the content been professionally translated with a regulatory glossary?
  • Do we feature local proof points (press, customers, advisors)?
  • Is the values narrative consistent but locally tuned?

Trust & communication

  • Do we use compact disclosures with a “What Could Go Wrong” section?
  • Are founder updates predictable (e.g., weekly micro-updates)?
  • How are we tracking community engagement and responding?

Risk Considerations & Governance Themes

Tokenization & Secondary Markets

Scott McIntyre cautioned: “Tokenization… can ease fluidity, but mirror tokens on a company that’s not even public—without firsthand information - is classic Wall Street.”

Sarah Hardwick has seen issuer and investor hesitation around unproven instruments, while Jason Fishman recalled “too-big-to-fail” initiatives that nevertheless failed when one domino fell. Implication: educate clearly, separate instrument types, and avoid promising liquidity that business fundamentals can’t support.

Rising Acquisition Costs

Grimoldi warned that as AI changes search and social, paid media costs rise: “You are gathering fewer visitors, so paid gets more expensive.” Expect a hybrid channel mix - offline media and events tracked to online conversion - reviving traditional tactics where they’re cost-effective.

Future Evolution to Watch

  • Secondary markets & conversion. If company-controlled windows and compliant venues mature, early-stage conversion may increase as liquidity anxiety declines (Grimoldi).
  • AI with a human core. Use AI for listening (sentiment, clustering, optimization), but keep humans visible - especially founders - at decisive moments (Hardwick/Fishman).
  • Values-led scale. As cross-border audiences grow, values-based narratives that travel (sustainability, innovation) may outperform demographic segmentations that don’t.

Conclusion: A Human-Centered, Data-Led Conversion Model

The conversion code isn’t a trick - it’s a discipline:

  • Lead with data. Instrument funnels, listen for behavioral signals, and let budgets follow what works.
  • Design for culture. Assume variation, not uniformity; engineer funnels for first-timers in some markets and serials in others.
  • Make founders visible. Authentic, consistent communication is a conversion asset—train for it and measure it.
  • Educate with intent. Short primers, plain-language risks, and high-signal webinars move investors from uncertainty to conviction.
  • Be clear on liquidity. Differentiate true pathways from synthetic promises; clarity protects trust.

As Scott McIntyre summarized: “Trust, preparation, education. Use data to your advantage, but make sure your transparency is authentic.” Sarah Hardwick’s counsel captures the north star: “Go all in on values and build a movement people can believe in.” And Jason Fishman grounds the work: “Do more - intelligently. Be educational in the process: traffic, messaging, variants, expert conversations.”

This document is intentionally non-prescriptive. GECA invites committees, platforms, regulators, and practitioners to interrogate these findings, pressure-test the hypotheses, and shape shared measurement and education approaches that raise conversion quality - without compromising investor protection - as we advance borderless access to capital.

About This Analysis

This paper synthesizes insights from GECA’s “Architects of Change” panel on global investor conversion. Participants included Jason Fishman (DNA), Sarah Hardwick (The Crowd), and Claudio Grimoldi (Turbo Crowd), moderated by Scott McIntyre (WEconomy/CfPA). All insights reflect panel discussion content and require further validation. This analysis does not represent GECA policy positions.

Watch the complete panel discussion: https://youtu.be/ZcCD7iyK_RU

Join GECA's mission for borderless equity crowdfunding: https://thegeca.org/membership-app-form/

 

by GECA

Cracking the Conversion Code: What Actually Moves Global Investors from Interest to Investment

Cracking the Conversion Code: What Actually Moves Global Investors from Interest to Investment

What transforms crowdfunding curiosity into actual investment commitment across cultural boundaries? In this GECA Architects of Change panel, conversion experts reveal data-driven strategies, cultural adaptation techniques, and educational frameworks that drive global investor behavior. Discover why 90% of Italian investors make only one investment, how webinars generate $1M+ in 24 hours, and why founder authenticity outperforms marketing spend in cross-border campaigns.

ALSO AVAILABLE ON

Share this article

  • X
  • black x

Episode 5 – The Conversion Code: What Actually Moves Global Investors from Interest to Investment

Theme: Education & Conversion
 Moderator: Scott McIntyre (WEconomy / CfPA)
 Panelists: Jason Fishman (Digital Niche Agency); Sarah Hardwick (Founder/CEO, The Crowd; former CMO, Aptera); Claudio Grimoldi (Founder, Turbo Crowd)

Scott McIntyre – Moderator Co-founder of WEconomy and Vice-Chair of the Crowdfunding Professional Association (CfPA) board, plus GECA Steering Committee member. Scott champions trust, transparency, and investor protection in alternative finance while implementing equitable social and financial movements. A longtime advocate for industry growth, he brings deep expertise in conversion optimization and cross-border regulatory challenges.

Jason Fishman Co-founder of Digital Niche Agency (DNA), GECA Steering Committee member, and board member of the US Crowdfunding Professional Association. Jason has guided hundreds of equity crowdfunding campaigns with data-driven marketing approaches, specializing in international investor outreach and conversion optimization. He brings systematic funnel analysis and performance measurement expertise to global capital raising.

Sarah Hardwick Founder of The Crowd and former CMO of Aptera, where she helped orchestrate a $140 million crowdfunding campaign. With two decades of marketing and communications experience, Sarah specializes in authentic storytelling and founder-centric conversion strategies. Her expertise spans sentiment analysis, values-based targeting, and building compelling narratives that drive investor engagement across cultural boundaries.

Claudio Grimoldi Founder of Turbo Crowd, a specialized marketing agency in Italy with deep expertise in European equity crowdfunding markets. Claudio brings unique insights into cultural investment patterns, regulatory navigation across EU jurisdictions, and conversion strategies for first-time investors. His experience spans the complexities of ECSPR implementation and cross-border campaign optimization.

Andy Field: Hello everyone. I’m Andy Field. and welcome to our Architects of Change Think Tank series. Now this is a series of five round table discussions, all with subjects that align with one of the GECA core pillars. Now, GECA stands for Global Equity Crowdfunding Alliance, and our supporters all share one vision, which is a truly borderless global equity crowdfunding ecosystem.

One of the pillars that we’ve detailed in our manifesto is education and investor empowerment, and today we’re going to dive into some of the most important aspects of what really drives investor decisions across borders. From data-driven insights on global investor behavior, to how founders can best prepare for international raises and the educational and marketing strategies that actually convert interest into investment.

So we’ve called this session the “Conversion Code – What Actually Moves Global Investors from Interest to Investment?’ Now to guide us through this discussion, I’m delighted to hand over to our moderator, Scott McIntyre. Scott’s a highly experienced crowdfunding strategist and longtime advocate for the growth of the industry.

He’s co-founder of WE Economy and a higher base non-profit, implementing an equitable social and financial movement, powered by a revolutionary set of tools that help establish thriving regional economies and as well as being a valued member of the GECA Steering Committee. Scott’s also vice chair of the board of Directors of the Crowdfunding Professional Association in the US and he’s been a leading advocate for trust, transparency, and investor protection in alternative finance, which makes him the perfect person to lead today’s conversation.

And introduce our panelists. So thank you very much, Scott, over to you.

Scott McIntyre: Thank you, Andy. Very kind words, I don’t deserve half. I’ll leave that to another day. So welcome everybody to another round table of the Global Equity Crowdfunding Alliance series. I’m Scott McIntyre, as Andy said, and I’ll be moderating today’s discussion.

The Conversion Code – What Actually Moves Global Investors From Interest To Investment? So over the next 60 minutes or so, we’ll explore what really influences investors when they decide to take the leap from data-driven insights, which are oftentimes hard to find and maybe even harder to trust into global investor behavior, to how founders can actually prepare for international raises. Something that is still quite new to most of us. So the strategies that, in turn, turn interest into commitments is what we’re trying to get to today, and I think we have a perfect cast of experts to discuss that.

So I’m delighted to be joined by three incredible panelists. With deep experience across marketing, investment behavior, and cross-border capital raising. So let’s introduce them, starting with Jason Fishman, colleague of mine. Jason is a seasoned growth strategist and co-founder of DNA. A digital marketing agency specializing in equity crowdfunding. And he’s guided hundreds of campaigns, bringing a data-driven approach to investor outreach and conversion.

He’s also a valued member of the GECA steering committee and a recent addition to the board of directors of my firm, the US Crowdfunding Professional Association. We are, by the way, an all volunteer trade group, largely responsible for the introduction and oversight of regulated investment crowdfunding industry in the US. And we take Jason’s edition, very seriously ’cause he brings a key set of skills that a lot of securities attorneys just don’t have. And that’s usually what boards are stacked with at the beginning. So I’ll leave that to another call as well.

We’re also joined by Sarah Hardwick. Sarah lives in a town that I once lived in, San Diego, California, and is founder of ‘The Crowd’. A very big title there, Sarah. So Sarah is also a marketing strategist and communications expert with two decades of experience helping entrepreneurs connect with audiences and build compelling narratives that drive investor and engagement. And there’s one thing, as a trained journalist, storytelling is critical in bringing meaning to campaigns. If you don’t relate to people, don’t connect with people, don’t inspire people, don’t give people the imagination, then you’re going to be suffering the results. So Sarah, I look forward to learning from you today as well.

And of course, joining us from Italy, Claudio Grimoldi. So Claudio is founder of the Turbo Crowd, and also a specialist marketing agency owner in Italy. Claudio brings a wealth of experience in global capital markets and investor relations, particularly in connecting European platforms and founders with international investors. Again, a very rare trait. So he has the unique perspective on what resonates across different geographies, and we’re going to grill him on all of that.

So thank you guys all for joining us and taking part in this conversation today and adding to GECA’s mission of more seamless international investing. So let’s get started by perhaps setting the scene on investor behavior. So it’s always good to start with the big picture guys. I’m sure you relate.

Investors today have more opportunities than ever, but moving from interest to actual commitment remains elusive. And yet even more critical, especially as we begin to open up these opportunities to investors everywhere and not just accredited investors who may be more used to these types of sophisticated terms and relationships with retail investors, what the US describes as unaccredited investors.

And this is also a topic that I hope to hear from, Claudio in particular today on how he views the differences and how people may be associate themselves differently with these types of definitions abroad. Let’s get into it. So what do you see as the most important factors that influence whether a global investor actually makes that leap from interest to investment?

And we’ll start with Jason. So Jason, from a data and marketing perspective, what signals or behaviors tell you that an investor is ready to commit?

Jason Fishman: An investor is ready. I like to picture it as a funnel. There’s this term of the marketing funnel, taking audiences from awareness. A lot of people at that stage, consideration, intent, even those that intend to invest, there’s going to be a big drop off and only percentage of ’em are going to move forward to the conversion stage of that process. And there’s advocacy, peer-to-peer marketing at the bottom, the ultimate form of marketing may I add.

So I want to set up a digital environment where I can see where these audiences are moving because we’re talking about scale, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands more prospective investors in many cases. So rather than trying to put my judgment on each of them individually, I want to see based on their digital behavior when they’re in market, if you will. We’re very specific about who we target. Start with the strategy program. I actually learned from Sarah quite a bit on target audiences and profiles and archetypes and how important that is even to start considering what story to bring to the table, how that lives in advertising, messaging and content that’s populated at each stage of the funnel.

But then I can have the data show me what’s working. ’cause I’m always going to have assumptions going into a campaign, Scott, but it’s all about the results. It’s all about the performance. Many of these groups need the capital. The marketing budget’s tough. they’re trying to raise here. So the performance has to be able to produce enough investments for them to do a rolling and close fund. The next stages of advertising traffic, flow if you will.

But if I put it in place to say, Hey, this person moved from the offering page to the checkout page. This person moved from an ad to a form to a webinar. They’ve engaged with three different emails. I’m going to be able to see some different signals, and as I look in the analytics for those pockets, performance can do more of what’s working from there.

Scott McIntyre: That’s pretty detailed. I think that actually peaked a side question that I had written down in my notes, and this one’s kind of going to be open to all of you. I’ll get back to my program question for Claudio in just a second. But, increased exposure to investment opportunities. We’ve seen this obviously since the advent of radio and television, and then onto the internet. We now have very specific channels, very direct channels, and very loud channels. Casting these opportunities of a lifetime get in now, fear of missing out. All of these emotional factors really do target people in ways that I know that is beneficial to people that are in the business of finding people quickly, for their own interest.

But how do you guys see the investors react to what a lot of people call noise as opposed to targeted messaging because, without any strict, what’s what I’m looking for, enforcement of transparency, which is still very new and still very cloudy in a lot of ways, particularly in the US regulatory environment that we’re in now. How do you help people break through that noise and make sure that what they’re hearing from you feels, and is, sincere, genuine, authentic? Sarah, if you want to just tackle that one.

Sarah Hardwick: Yeah. I think I feel like that, that really, it’s about that transparency and I think there’s an opportunity or, I guess I would say. a challenge and an opportunity for companies who are facing that noise to really get beyond that. And I think one of the ways you can do that is starting with that one-to-one relationship where you’re really being honest about the ups and downs. And I think there is, can be a tendency to really want to sugarcoat things and to really want to talk about the fluff and really not get into the details. And sometimes they’re hard to share and sometimes, it’s not always positive. And so I think one of the things that really helps to cut through the noise is when you can be fully honest. And when you can nurture that so that people can expect, hey, things are going great and there’s going to be some really exciting stuff happening. But also here are some challenges that are being faced.

So I think it’s a challenge and it’s an opportunity because there is so much noise out there. But really one of the key ways to cut through is to really have that candid conversation from the very beginning and really bring investors along through that journey and be honest about the triumphs and the tribulations that are happening in the midst of what you’re building. And really share the honest truth of what’s going on there.

Scott McIntyre: I guess that that connection, you said the term one-to-one. I know that’s almost impossible metric to achieve in the business that you’re in, so I appreciate that you would even get to that level of intimacy with any particular person. Man, I just wonder how is storytelling versus data reporting? stats and figures and case studies, all these things are quite moving when it comes to investment decisions. But how do you weigh the meaning, the story, the relevance to a person’s. Perhaps emotional disposition as different from their analytical disposition.

Sarah Hardwick: And from my perspective, I do a lot of sentiment analysis. So I’m looking a lot at the reviews. I’m looking at what people are saying. I’m looking at the way that they’re talking, what they’re talking about, who they’re talking to. And so I think beyond the actual numbers, clicks and conversion, I’m really digging into the messaging and the words they’re using and that kind of getting a lot more context that way. And that’s one of the places I think AI can be very helpful in analyzing and getting really granular when you’re looking at the sentiment specifically.

Scott McIntyre: That is awesome. That’s exactly the kind of stuff I wanted to hear, and I can appreciate why Jason would’ve pointed at you as having learned from you because having experienced his process firsthand and outreach to our potential members and potential attendees to our summit, I can tell that he’s taken that to heart. So congrats to both of you on that.

Claudio, do you see a difference in this process across different countries in Europe? And if you don’t have particular difference in that, let us know too. If you’re dealing specifically with just Italians, that’s cool. But what are your thoughts on differences country by country, for example, do Italian investors behave differently versus those from other areas of Europe?

Claudio Grimoldi: Yeah, thanks for the question. Thanks again for being here. And yeah, we are completely different between Italy, Spain, France, we have also, Netherlands, we have UK which is not in Europe as well. And talking yesterday with Jason was something super interesting for me because it’s completely another behavior from us. You know why? Because we don’t have those type of serial investors.

There is a very interesting study in Italy, which is running each year from the Polytechnical, which is one of the most famous university out here. And they are highlighting how just the one point 18, it was just decreasing every year more, investors are doing serially, those type of investments, like more than 10. And if you look into the numbers, 90% of them are just doing one or two investments in their life, like the 75% just once in life. And the 15% are just doing just two times in their life. And they don’t have to be, they don’t supposed to be in two different companies. Maybe they’re just investing in two different rounds in the same company as well.

And the thing it’s about, so in this is in the south of Europe, because in the north they don’t have. Ready for this, Andrew. They don’t have equity crowdfunding. They are completely into lending crowdfunding. If you look at the numbers, it’s completely mesmerizing. I can say like in the Netherlands, they are raised something like 700, 770 million in six months. And the Netherlands is just a little part of it. So it’s very small market. And more than a billion in one year as a turnover, and which is 99.9% of lending crowdfunding.

So you can see completely different behaviors and way to interact with the campaigns and so on. And for me, Italians are not so famous for investments and so on. We don’t like to risk our money. The only people who are even worse than others are Germans. Sorry, Germans. But they don’t, they are the only ones who run without European regulation here because we are under the same law here, under the same umbrella. But Germany are like, no, we are not under the European ones. So it’s pretty, it’s a pretty mess.

The actual one is called ECSPR, like European Crowdfunding Service Provider Regulation. And yeah, it works technically, but still working on this. So from my perspective and sorry for being super long, the thing it’s about transforming your clients or potential ones to investors because the thing it’s about the company itself. Cannot afford very big investments in marketing and so on, and blah, blah, blah. So they need to focus on the actual market they are already addressing. So they need to address the same person that they are already facing during their average day at work. And the thing it’s about transforming, then using rewards.

So the final answer from myself, it’s about transforming your client or potential one, and not pointing to the capital gain, which is undefined potential and you need to pay taxes on it. But using rewards which are interesting and they’re relevant to your actual audience, and then they know how much they are earning from those type of rewards as well.

And the, I think the most important example here, it’s Brewdog, which is just a brewery, and they were giving us beers if they were subscribing and getting shares of the company itself. So yeah, we are digging more into it later. But that’s my 2 cents about this.

Scott McIntyre: I think that’s a very interesting mix of strategies and I think I should like to investigate that perhaps personally over a beer with you in Italy soon. So let’s make a plan for that. But you opened up another question too, and that begs the question to me. How do you feel the sentiment in Italy in particular, or across Europe in general, as you’ve said, it’s more interested in the lending side. Do you feel that there’s an interest, more so gaining in securitized investments because of the success in the US or not, or just because of their own interest and knowledge of the space evolving? Or do you think that it’s just a cultural difference?

Claudio Grimoldi: It’s a cultural different from US, you say? Yeah. So it’s decreasing under the crowdfunding itself, but it’s just evolving in different ways. Because at the beginning, like startups were offering shares by themself. Thanks to equity crowdfunding and everyone start to think about crowdfunding as a marketing tool just for startups, but they were wrong.

Startups are just capital intensive. They were looking for any way to get funded, so everyone was just misclicking something in their mind, understanding wrongly. So people were investing into it, treating them as SMEs. Like the 95% of startups are failing. So after it, they were, they got something like dreams broken and they stopped to invest in different startups. And just to be clear, like in Italy we had something like 40 different equity crowdfunding platforms, and trust me, 40. When I say four zero platforms, even before the ECSPR, it’s a very big number. No reasons why we need all of them, right? Because they were just following a sort of trends, trends. So they were like, yeah, maybe this type of market we will, growing the future, something like, but then it’s declining and it’s getting different.

But if you are looking for others, like in the lending crowdfunding, it’s getting higher and higher every year because it’s the same for us because it’s called crowd investing. So they are putting about equity and lending under the same umbrella. So they are like, this one is getting something even more because you can see like your capital gain getting back to your portfolio, to your wallet compared to a startup, just for who is looking for equity crowdfunding for raising money somehow.

And then try to do a profit strategy, an exit strategy for an investor, which is very difficult to achieve. You actually, you’re causing me to have all kinds of other questions. Sorry Andy. but this session may run long. So the beauty guys is we’re not doing this live, so take your time answering. Don’t worry if I talk too fast, we can slow it down.

But that actually brings me to another question. So is, if I’m hearing you correctly, the lending space is still growing and you have a healthy competition base, but on the equity, on the securitized crowdfunding, the investment side crowdfunding, you saw a glut of new companies go into that space hoping to drive this type of investment, but now they’re starting to falter as most startups do.

Do you find that those companies have been dying off by attrition or are they merging and combining? Are they being acquired by other firms? And then secondarily, do you see that the companies that are more focused on lending will be perhaps expanding or duplicating their work into the equity side?

Claudio Grimoldi: So the startups are aiming for a classic profit strategy for investors like getting public company, getting listed somehow somewhere in Europe. because in Italy we also invented the crowd listing, which is, I think amazing for all of you because you can get listed in France on, Euronext Access+ growth market. Just raising 2 million by 10 people and was perfect for crowdfunding because we are eligible to get public just doing crowdfunding. So you are just avoiding a lot of costs and yeah. the private offer, so how it’s going your path.

So the thing is about, yeah, startups are just. And people are just understanding that startups might be a very risky asset class. So they are going slower on investing in different startups. But then the real SMEs are going to see the crowdfunding equity one as a real opportunity, calling it as community funding because they are like, I have, for example, I have a shoes e-commerce. The one I was talking about three days ago, it was like a brand, a brand for shoes, Italian dream, shoes, whatever brand stylish thing. And at the beginning, three years ago, they were like, no, you cannot raise via crowdfunding. ’cause we are not a startup in Italy. We have tax benefits if you are an eligible startup. it’s a way to describe companies. So you are getting like 50 up to 75% of tax credit that you invested in the company. So they were pushing on it, but it was just the only type of reward, we can call it as a financial reward. And people were like, no, if you’re not a startup, we are not accepting you.

But it’s so stupid because this one was, is someone who is getting something like three up to 4 million revenue every year, and they can invest money into marketing. They already have a lot of people there. They have they have actual customers. They are not looking for them. So for me it’s about. Your platform is very stupid because the real business, it’s on SMEs because they can invest money, they can turn potential clients into investors for real, right? Going to change, using using crowdfunding as a marketing leverage compared to others like the other brand shoes there. So yeah, the thing is about evolving in those type of things.

So we need, from my perspective, we need some time, in order to get to see other mature, more mature companies creating a sort of track record for others because startups already have. So we need to see someone more mature to do that and others will follow as well.

Scott McIntyre: That is a lot of information Claudio, thank, I feel like we could do a whole separate discussion just on that topic. And I think that Andy is nodding his head. We will probably call you for that, and I really wish we would’ve heard from you earlier or known about you earlier because the CfPA has been sponsoring a similar proposal to congress and to the legislators to allow for a tax credit for investing in these types of offerings. So I will be calling on you again for descriptions of that.

So let’s move on to founder preparation for international raises. So one consistent theme we hear is that founders often underestimate the level of preparation that they need to inspire confidence from international investors, much less the work that’s required to actually go through the offerings, which I’m sure Jason and Sarah and you will also have some comments on.

So the question is, what should founders do differently when preparing for cross border fundraising compared to raising locally? And we’ll start out with Sarah. So Sarah, from your background in messaging and storytelling, what have you seen that works best in building trust and credibility with international investors? If you’ve had the good fortune to address them?

Sarah Hardwick: Yeah, I think, I have, and I think, there’s a lot of opportunity for brand dilution to happen with language, with culture, and so I think having really clear and consistent messaging is just absolutely critical. And really doing an audit of your messaging across all of your touch points, whether it’s social and web, and all of these, your different assets that you’re putting out there, and really making sure that your message is absolutely as clear and consistent as possible is one thing.

And the second thing I think is leaning into, and you’ll hear me talk about this probably a lot during this talk is really leaning into this idea of universal values. And so rather than looking at demographics or geographics, and trying to target, and I think that is important and that is one layer, when you’re preparing for an international kind of campaign, you really want to take a look at things like what do they have in common? And look at things like sustainability or innovation and looking at these factors that you can really, that bring people together and that you can utilize to move the needle to bring a community together that’s outside of what you might traditionally do from a segmentation standpoint.

Scott McIntyre: That makes sense. Appreciate that. Claudio, what regulatory or compliance expectations to international investors. Most want to see addressed up front, and I’m going to preface this is the fact that obviously we’ve been in this business since long before regulated investment crowdfunding was legalized in the United States only in 2016. We founded in 2012. And so we had a lot of time to prepare potential investors for the day that they could actually start to convert into shareholders. And that was a process. So we still get people that call on us to advise them on their campaigns for rewards and donation campaign. I’m like, that’s not even our space. We can’t really compliment, it’s not regulated. It’s something that we really, we want to rely on the platforms to do better education and preparation for the people that use their services.

On the other hand, a lot of people think that should be government regular. That should be something that a trade association should do. Unfortunately isn’t all volunteer trade association. We don’t really have the luxury of spending all of our time, of our volunteers time anyway. On preparing. We do it through the occasional video conference. We do it through our annual summits and such. But actually getting into the business of education is very expensive as anyone who’s founded a nonprofit knows.

How do you feel about it? Do you think that this should be something that’s tackled more by an association or more by the government? Or should it be laissez faires like what we have in the United States?

Claudio Grimoldi: I think as, who will do it in the future will get a lot of potential clients because people need to be educated starting from the company themself because they need to understand different behaviors. Like in the Europe, we have those type of different way to invest money. And also we have some barriers I would say based on the language itself. Because we are from Italy and you can hold my, as my accent and I can barely speak Italian as well. So think about English and try to figure out, if you try to do something like this in Germany, then you have something in France, then you have something in, Netherlands, then you have something maybe Norway, they have different behavior. It’s a nightmare. Completely nightmare.

And thinking about something like this in u in the USA, starting from the late, the compliance side, we can say, getting everything all together with, thanks to the ECSPR might be the first step to get something across between Europe and in the USA in the future. And maybe something thanks to the technology like we need in Italy, in Europe we have DLT Pilot, which is a sort of tokenization itself allowing others to be able to wrestle the shares is easier than something just gathering information from someone else who will be interest to shares of some company itself.

So it’s pretty difficult to explain everything at the beginning. So yeah, the thing it’s about starting from the company itself, they need to understand where they want to invest they, when they, where they want to raise. So the behavior of the potential investors. So if you are in the USA, like Y Combinator, it’s super famous to set up a, not an SPV, like a company in Delaware. So they already know everything about the regulation there. So startups are very famous in Delaware and in Europe, for example. You need to understand which type of companies as a SPV, maybe because you need to raise via equity crowdfunding, need to be set up in another company, in another nation like. In their country, sorry, like in Germany. So you need to set up a GMBH, which is their type of standard company. And starting from it, people will trust more because they are like, yeah, we are from Germany and we can invest into a German company, which is an SPV from another one.

So it’s pretty difficult one. And we are working, we as a Europe, working on the definition of European startup, which allow everyone to invest in the same company. Without those type of barriers and limit limitations, then you have the language and then you need to be relevant to the market itself. So if no one is just understanding what you are selling of because maybe you are, you have more Italian clients, or potential I investor is not relevant for someone else, which is in USA to invest in your company itself. So it’s about getting relevant and trying to follow the behavior of the potential investors. I think.

Scott McIntyre: It’s got to be quite a challenge. We are fairly monoculture in the US and at least in the in that all of our major platforms focus almost entirely on English speaking customers. So it is a challenge. I do not envy you on that, but it seems like Italy’s got at least Italy from what I heard from you. Anyway, that’s some pretty progressive mechanisms in place to really inspire people to at least investigate the space. I’m curious, how some of that’s going to translate to bottom line, but I guess on the lending side, the risks are much, much lowered. I think just by the timeline, you can, lending terms are I think easier for people to get their heads around.

Claudio Grimoldi: That, sorry for, but you know that Italy was the first one in you in the world. Probably something like to organize and be able others to invest via equity crowdfunding. We did it even before Barack Obama. So we were into it at the beginning, but then we are famous as the cradle of laws. So we need to dig very much into every type of law because we are reading everything. So it’s a nightmare for the platforms right now, but we were like pioneers at the beginning.

Scott McIntyre: How do you feel, how do you feel the Italians or Europeans in general view the US regulatory regime, rush to the dollar, invest, invest, invest. Is there a general consensus on this? the style of American investors.

Claudio Grimoldi: They are dreaming about America as the American dream. The real dream is finding American investors, but I think it’s about not being able to be there because, they can be not relevant, probably because they don’t have enough effort as a financial or marketing and whatever from that side because they are not big enough.

America is not, it’s 100,000 more than Italy. So we are trying to compare like France to USA, we’re not trying to compare Europe to USA, so we are so small compared to your country and your continent. So for us it’s just about for me, San Diego, it’s like the neighborhood of New York. Yeah. Because we cannot, so it’s completely different. We cannot compare them because the weight is completely different. So it’s, it’s, we are just dreaming about American investors and trying to follow them, but we have different behaviors and trying to replicate those type of behaviors here, it’s completely wrong, but we don’t have the regulation to do that.

So you need to be there in USA opening like the, your Delaware or whatever company, and you are. Creating your actual company here in Europe probably will become your branch and the American one will be the most relevant one. Sorry for being so no.

Scott McIntyre: Again, please. we have until 3.30, so hopefully you guys aren’t slipping out of here anytime soon. And it’s Jason, it actually brings a ton of perspective and I think in particular, you and Jason, and you and Sarah should probably keep close notes because I imagine that translating these opportunities to foreign investors is going to be a real trick. And anybody who gets a handle on that, that not just intimacy, but that relevance, that perspective that’s shared is really going to be a gold mine when it does happen.

So Jason, any feedback from your POV on investors coming in from perhaps, rewards and donation? I don’t know how much of the education space you need to give in that, or are you fine tuned on securitized investors.

Jason Fishman: I worked on Reg D accredit investor campaigns first, that actually got attention from the reward crowdfunding world. And I have a portfolio of over 50 Indiegogo and Kickstarter campaigns. I took a lot of fundamentals from there working on the securitized rounds and I said took, I talked about studying everything earlier. I really do think it comes down to the research and the planning. So going back to your question earlier about which audiences from which markets, going to this question about which audiences for which type of filing, which type of vehicle success leaves clues, Scott.

I want to know exactly what the conversation looks like today from my target audiences and my competitors, people who are competing for the same audience. I say my, this is from the eyes of the issuer, the founder, the company. When I’m asked to run a global campaign, when I’m asked to run a campaign that targets Europe, I don’t want to run an advertising media buy that says Global or Europe. I want to run variants and say, Hey, I’m going after these five, these 10 different audiences. Here are the geolocations. Here’s what they do online, even before determining audiences, I want to do a competitor marketing audit. I want to say, Hey, what were the top five campaigns to date in Italy or in Germany? I understand the rules are different there, in the UK, whichever market I am being tasked with by the client.

I want to know which campaigns are performing with the most velocity today, as well as to date, I want to find the issuers, the companies that are most similar in terms of vertical. and when I research, I’m looking at their offering page. I’m looking at their pitch video, understanding this could be reward crowdfunding. You see the crossover. I want to look at the reviews from the backers, from the investors. I want to see the faces, the individuals, what made them move forward. So then as I’m looking at the target audiences that can move the needle for this round, I can say, Hey, here’s a few different audiences we’re looking to reach in Italy. Just playing off that example. Here’s how it differs. If we’re targeting the US and I’ve worked on campaigns that have to exclude US, here’s what it looks like in the UAE. In Japan, Korea, different countries. I’ve spoken at conferences in eight countries. I could tell you how it differs in APAC and in Australia, but it’s not just a matter of pressing a global button because beyond the parameters of the targeting, I now need to determine the creative, the messaging.

I’ve already researched the marketing that these other guys put out. I already know the key elements of the pitch. But what do I want to highlight? Do I have to translate it? Who am I working with to do that? Because I need to make sure it’s going to sound authentic to whomever I’m going after. You can imagine just the different types of English and I’ll speaking English here, different types of, I’ll use the word slang around it. Different words that can be used to show expertise. I play golf. If someone throws different rules around about a positive handicap, I immediately understand, okay, they, they get the game.

So I need to be able to do that for different verticals. But as I’m determining the audience, as I’m determining the messaging, I’m then looking to figure out the channels this is going to run on and the partners I can use to help accelerate it. There are different publishers that are specific to given verticals in given regions beyond just countries that if I point to them and say, Hey. We were featured here, or they do put out an email newsletter, a post, there’s some type of content created. The campaign may accelerate much faster there. And while Claudio mentioned, and Claudio, I’m taking notes on everything you’re saying is so fascinating to me. And this is why I love being involved with GECA and the fact that Andy built this and the potential for all of us globally.

I want to be able to understand. How to hit the different goals in these markets and then optimize towards the markets that are working best. There are many campaigns I could tell you about Web3 campaigns that the US was not the strongest performing audience, that there are stronger investors in other places. I need to cast a wide enough net while setting the analytics up to tell me where to gravitate towards, where to make data-driven decisions towards, and then ramp up what’s working from there. Not just, I’ll use the word again, assumptions or initial thoughts at the beginning. That this is going to be global and this is going to be huge. As much as saying two weeks in, two months in, these are the segments that are working best. This is what we’re going to do more of.

Scott McIntyre: That’s a lot too. Thanks Jason. Appreciate that. Yeah. Andy, I’m going to apologize in advance. I’m giving you a lot of editing to do, my friend. Sorry about that. So we’re going to move on to educational strategies, more specifically, educational strategies that convert.

And although the conversion side is never in the wheelhouse, CfPA, that’s not our business. As someone who’s also founded and helped build several nonprofits, I assure you that knowledge of risks and opportunities is vital to both issuers and to investors. So it’s a heavy burden for trade groups when we’re introducing something new that hasn’t been done before. Much like entrepreneurship, you’re doing something that hasn’t been done before. The challenges are oftentimes unimaginable, and yet you find yourself in them very quickly when you start to get the word out to something that’s so promising, as crowdfunding came to be in the United States anyway.

That perhaps tees up another topic, but if it tickles you, feel free to comment on that. Here’s the main question though. So education seems to be one of the most powerful levers in moving investors forward, whether it’s webinars, data reports, or community engagement. So what strategies or engagement tools have you seen actually move the needle in terms of conversion rates?

Talk specifically to these tools, such as webinars, data reports, or community engagement, and how do you weigh those when you’re engaging an issuer? And we will start with Jason. So you’ve run hundreds of campaigns, which educational content or tactics consistently deliver the strongest ROI? What are they?

Jason Fishman: Sure. I wasn’t sure if my answer before was too long, flattered that you came back. You get a chance to write up right now, buddy. Go for it. you want to look at traffic drivers that bring people into a funnel, mid funnel. You mentioned webinars. I love webinars. I think they’re an anchor to content marketing. If I look at content marketing, it’s really short form across social, including LinkedIn, YouTube type channels, email, you have to get people into that system first. But then the long form content, articles, videos, live events. I’ve worked on live events that raise hundreds of thousands of dollars and from both retail and credit investors. During the pitch itself, I’ve worked on webinars that was in a 24 hour window. I’ve been over a million dollars raised. It gives you an opportunity to market before, during, after. It gives you an opportunity to pull in that social proof, those third parties that can say, yeah, what they’re doing is great. I’ve invested. Here’s why. If that speaker as an audience that they can bring to that live event. And I say live event, ’cause it could be webinar, it could be in person with a digital extension from it. So you mentioned webinars. I’d see the direct correlation to a higher conversion rate from that as well as retargeting ads. Everyone should be running retargeting ads.

Scott McIntyre: Great. Appreciate that. Let me take one second to update my notes and we will move on to Sarah. So how do you strike the balance between providing information and keeping the message compelling rather than overwhelming? So I know that’s got to be hard, especially when you’re doing mass marketing.

Sarah Hardwick: Yeah, absolutely. I think leaning into emotion, three quarters of our decisions are made by that emotional factor and so I think you really center in and hunker down in that why and that purpose and then you back it up with proof. So I think starting off and really focusing in on inspiring on making that emotional connection and then of course backing up with those facts and those proof points. And I think starting in that way is very powerful.

Scott McIntyre: Excellent. Alright, that is the bulk of it on education. Claudio, do you have anything that you wanted to add from a European perspective on education? How people perceive it, how it’s delivered?

Claudio Grimoldi: I think on the marketing perspective, it’s about creating and delivering information are better as a lead magnet instead of a direct conversion because people need to understand the marketing, to understand the company itself, whatever, and blah, blah, blah. So I completely agree that. For me, like the 90% of the effort online must be driving to webinars because it’s a sort of one to many selling, as a live pitch to everyone else. So people are not feeling as threatening by the founders, whatever. So think about having a direct call with Jason who is trying to sell you his own company. It’ll be like, being in the same pool with a shark, I can say. But if you are there with us, Jason is just about telling, speaking to others and they can deal with it. So they can just putting questions, whatever in the same time. So they are not doing this in the, in a one-to-one way to do that.

And also promoting information online with like reports, white papers, whatever, and so on. It’s a very clever and smart way, and I would say the standard way to interact with potential customers and or investors as I said before. But I think the most important thing at the beginning is to translating those type of internet and remote interactions to a physical ones, because when you bring someone. One of the, my best clients in the past raised 17 million via equity crowdfunding with zero revenues. And it was a thing, right? And the best deals were done, on, in, at dinner. We are Italians obviously, but everyone was there like in the internet. They were not they were like, is these people real? Are those people real? Is this person existing for real? are those type of businesses out there? Whatever. So they were like, okay, we interacting the, in the internet, but now it’s time for the real life so you can bring there someone else. And I think mixing all together and being able to show you are there, you’re doing your things. It’s the best way to convert someone to a potential investor, to a real one.

Scott McIntyre: That actually, yeah, please, Sarah.

Sarah Hardwick: Of course. You guys raise your hands anytime and chime in as you like. Okay. Yeah. Yeah, I think this idea, that Claudio mentioned of this, it’s almost like community led education is really important and whether it’s an ambassador program or whether it’s an event, I think this idea of arming people, arming your supporters, arming your fans, arming your backers with information that they can take out, and then that really becomes very authentic. And I think that’s a really powerful force on a grassroots level that I think you can really take advantage of.

Scott McIntyre: I think you were just literally reading into my notes. Sarah, obviously we are related, so I’ll go a little bit deeper in that one. So my thought Claudio was with so many borders and so many cultures, have any of the platforms in Europe like discussed contributing to a common body, an objective third party that would handle this type of education on a region by region basis, so that investors really trust a more authentic, objective third party as opposed to always worrying whose motivation is behind this message, this education, if you will.

Claudio Grimoldi: No, everyone, every platform is looking for itself, I will say. And they are not working together for something like that. Just because, like two platforms are real cross borders, more or less. someone else is just about, yeah, I have my international license, but I know I not working there. I’m just allowed to gather some potential companies in the future, but they’re not established into another country, something like that, and so on.

So you are more educated by, I would say by the company itself. Because the, you are not facing any type of crowdfunding platforms till your favorite company is getting listed there in the platform. And then from the founders, whatever you are getting into the those type of informational processes and funnels as Jason said before. And it’s the very cool way I can correct way to interact with, because you are trusting founders in that type of usually in that type of phase funding phase of the company itself. You are investing into people not, you are not investing into companies because they’re new on the market. They maybe they could be like a sort of bet you are just doing something like this.

And just to close what Sarah was saying before and I completely agree with her, the think it’s about if you are. After the campaign closed, if you’re interacting to your investors and whatever, and you are providing a lot of stories, even if when you are failing, when you are facing some problems, you are just preparing the ground, as we said here from the second round, with the crowdfunding. Because transforming clients to investors and investors into ambassador means adding smart money. Because if you’re just looking for the money itself, crowdfunding is even, it’s even more expensive than banks if you’re good looking for loans or VCs or whatever you’re looking for. But if you’re looking to them as a smart money, as someone who can bring you a business in different types, like new partners, new clients and whatever, and blah, blah blah. You are just need to set up with, as Jason already knows, like referral or athlete programs in order to pay back someone else. And they are participating in the real way to your company, which is their company itself.

Scott McIntyre: It’s very interesting the perspective you gave and you used a phrase in particular that I noted and I don’t know if Jason or Sarah heard it the way I did, but investors there are looking at really making an investment in a person rather than in a company, especially with startups. ’cause it usually is that one person with the vision, one person that does the hard work, that guy holding the bag as I like to tell my students. So I wonder, Jason and Sarah, have you guys encountered campaigns where you really want to focus on the visionary founder as opposed to the metrics or the promise of the investment or the rewards that they may get downstream. You want to start, Jason, please?

Jason Fishman: 100%. people invest in people and I like polling retail and accredit investors, especially at events. And when I hear people say, Hey, we’ve invested in Start Engine deals and Wefunder and I found this one on the Dealmaker, they’ll reference the CEO by their first name as if they know them. And it’s very important to be able to show the captain that’s steering the ship. Again, we’re going to optimize towards, we’re seeing the best performance, but it’s commonly the founder, the management team, and you have your own publishing channels. So if you’re putting their voice, their statements, their likeness out across social media, email, long form content channels, I absolutely see that show up. I see the opposite at times as well too. Where there’s not a picture of the founder, even in the team section or maybe just there and you start asking questions, always a red flag for me. If there’s not real people behind it, I immediately turn the page. I swear. That’s exactly, I’m exactly, that’s interesting. I appreciate that. Sarah you want to add.

Sarah Hardwick: Yeah, I think, in my experience when I was working with Aptera, we raised 140 million and the two founders became a huge part of the story. And then part of it was because people could relate to them. There were these two guys who had started this amazing company from their garage and they people felt oh, I can relate to them. And then to see them progress and to see them learn and to see them evolve and to see them move, people felt like they knew them. And I think there’s a lot that can be said for putting yourself out there. And we talked about transparency, but being humble, they were never like flashy. They weren’t like trying to be anyone. They weren’t we, they were just very authentic and they were themselves. And I think that really resonated with their investors.

Scott McIntyre: I need to qualify that. I’m not being paid to say this, but Sarah, if you were behind Aptera, I’ve been following them forever and I immediately saw an identifiable personality. I saw real people with real vision, but it was also done in such a perfectly smooth and brilliant delivery of that message and that branding. I got to tell you that some of the best stuff that I’ve seen. So if you were involved in that anyway, kudos to you.

Sarah Hardwick: Yeah, amazing. I was the CMO for several years and was behind the whole campaign, so I appreciate that.

Scott McIntyre: I’d love to hear an update at some point offline. We’ll talk about that another day. But I’m a huge, I’m a giant outdoor person and camping and recreational vehicles to me are all that. I’m curious and hopeful that their story continues. ’cause I know there were some hiccups along the way as we all face.

So that said, Andy, I also felt like I should chime you in here because we did touch on the subject of whether or not governments, regulatory bodies, platforms, who are all the parties that are involved. And when you’ve got different languages and different cultures, it seems a group like GECA is going to be desperately needed when we’re starting to open up these cross-border investments. You want to chime?

Andy Field: Yeah, I will do. And this is the first time I have actually spoken in any of these round tables. I’ve managed to stay right in the background. But no, you’re absolutely right. This is exactly what GECA is going to be establishing by putting out our white paper as a result of these amazingly fruitful conversations with industry experts who actually know what they’re talking about. They’ve been on the ground, they understand the pain points, the problems in dealing with all of the things that we’re trying to achieve, which ultimately comes under the one umbrella of the borderless utopian borderless equity crowdfunding.

So. All of the afore mentioned institutions that you’ve mentioned there, Scott, policymakers, governments, regulators, they all need to be aware of the difficulties on regional levels as as well as, we have to tackle the regional issues first. But then once that’s happened, the harmonization process has to occur in order for the industry to scale as it should do, and as it’s got the technology, it’s got the people. It’s got the investors there are obvious things that are stopping that happening and they’re the things that we are going to try and address with GECA and with the help and support of the other existing organizations that operate more regionally.

UK Crowdfunding association, I say that because I’m in the UK, but obviously, you guys with the CfPA, and of course, the European Digital Finance Association, in Europe and further afield as well into Africa, Asia and Australia. so yeah, that it’s about harmonizing all of those things to to try and get a more coherent ecosystem, I think. And that’s what we’re going to be doing.

Scott McIntyre: Eloquent. As always, Andy. I will say, when you approach me with your concept, as you may recall, I told you, oh, I’ve been there. I’ve thought about this one before. Yep. And I called mine the International Crowd Finance Leadership Council. I thought it was a pretty big sounding name. It was cool. But the beauty of the acronym was I click ICLC. So I thought, oh, we can get away with this. No, it is such a challenge what you’re doing, because it’s not just about harmonizing, as you said. And I love that word because music is my thing, but harmonizing is one thing in that with a cacophony of voices and different styles of music and languages, that’s going to be a challenge in itself. I would think that you might want to think more about distilling the ethical points of each of these differing cultures and approaches to investment and view on investment will maybe reach a better result. Finding these common ethics, I think will be the trick. And being able to.

Andy Field: And I think that’s very valid and that will form a part of the white paper. I think that’s completely right. But on the other hand as well, we can only do this with the support and voices from across the globe. And we have managed to build that over the last 12 months or so. We’ve got 70 supporters now across the globe. We’ve got steering committee of 13 members from across the globe, all very key people in the industry. And having those voices just makes us able to shout louder and that’s what we need to be able to do. So we’re now really going to start producing the goods, if you like, and start on our mission now. We’ve had that growth period. So that’s what I’m really excited to do. And all of you guys actually are on board. I know. So it’s, thank you for that. And long way it continue.

Scott McIntyre: Thank you for doing the hard work, my friend. I know what’s behind it. So more congrats to you than to us, but we will definitely show up because we all believe in this for the right reasons, and I think that’s a huge component of why I’m involved. So thank you again.

And that kind of tees us up to the final point, folks. And we’re right at three o’clock now, so I think we’re in the middle of it. looking ahead. So as the global investment landscape continues to evolve, and it will, especially with new tech and increased exposure through the new channels of media, conversion may look very different in five years. So how do you all see investor conversion changing in the very near future, especially as technology regulation and global access continue to shift?

And I will start with Claudio. What role do you see for cross-border platforms in reshaping investor expectations?

Claudio Grimoldi: Looking at the regulation, I can say, I bet the most important part will be related to the secondary markets. Until we are not able to grant everyone to be easy, a very easy way, to sell the company, to the shares of the company, by both Sorry, means clicking many times this time, 0 4 0 4 at 9:00 PM from you, from the English. So I have to do it again. So I was saying, looking at the regulation, until we are not ready to grant a real secondary market, in the same way as your buying Tesla or Nvidia, or pick your favorite American company on Robinhood. Because Andy is from UK and you are you are, it’s a very easy way to resell the shares themself. Until we are not able to do something like that in the future, the primary market will be still cut somehow. It’s the same way as. You think about, can you buy, you want to buy that house or that car or that pair of shoes, even if you are not able to sell that in the future, like the Jordan brand, right? So you’re not facing that type of problem.

So starting from that, we need to look at the tech, the technology, the tech stack, be able to grant those type of opportunities. And I think the tokenization in the real time, like not the Bitcoin material, something like that, the real tokenization parts will be super important here. And as I said before, the DLT Pilot regime in Italy, I think might be the first step, to bring something like this for the European companies. And then even in the future, I, already, I put like DLT for the, from Google, alerts. And I’m looking for something like this, even the, in the USA market.

So yeah, let’s see what’s. This brings us in the future, but the other way to interact and from the marketing perspective, Jason already knows everything about this, with AI, we have a big problem with the AI overview in the future. So it means every type of, Paid advertising online will increase even more because you are gathering less, visitors on your website. And it means you need to cover those type of laws somehow. And you need to push more on the online marketing maybe, but it will be super expensive. I did it from 2012, put me putting my money on Facebook at the beginning. So yeah, I remember how cheap was it at the beginning? And people are right now still thinking about, it’s a very cheap way to promote yourself, but it’s not, it’s just more efficient on the way of tracking everyone else.

So in thinking about you need, we need to face new way to raise money using old ways to promote yourself like, such as radio, television, offline media, whatever, and track them as a offline conversions to an online marketing assets, as. We did in the past for the online media as a new media, which were super cheap at the beginning. Merging those type of technology from the marketing perspective and from the financial side, I think will be a very sweet spot in the middle for everyone. Be able to raise money internationally and sell them and whatever, and yeah. That’s it.

Scott McIntyre: once again I can say that Andy has done his homework in bringing you to this group because you have spawned question, every single comment you’ve made. So I’m going to do another diversion. Sorry, Andy, on the editing, but here’s what it is, and you put it very subtly. It flowed into the conversation, but tokenization is a very hot topic in the US right now as a result, I think largely of the allure of this new mirror token, which we can talk about in a second. I’m definitely going to put that on Jason and Sarah’s desk.

But secondary markets, first and foremost, as lucrative as they may be for platforms and for lawyers and for brokers themselves, they pose a huge risk to early stage companies that live and die by very volatile market performance when they’re still evolving their very business model oftentimes it’s very different for instance, than they’re living on a daily basis, right? They make a mistake one day and all of their followers are going to know about it. Brokers are going to start hawking it, and sales are going to start going out the door, driving down their valuation. So their next round is going to be challenged as a down round.

This is a horrible performance issue, unlike public markets where at least they have quarterly reports to work toward, right? They can say, okay, just wait for the quarterly report. We got 90 days to figure this crap out. So I’ll put it to you, Sarah, first, secondary markets, tokenization, mirrors, in particular, the stage is yours.

Sarah Hardwick: Yeah, I think it is the evolution is happening so quickly, and I think on one hand it’s really very exciting. I think. I see, and I don’t know, Jason, I’d be curious your opinion of this, but some hesitation on the behalf of issuers and investors as well, just to explore some of these new avenues. And I think it’s going to be a little extra layer of, yes, it’s exciting and it’s this cool new thing, but it’s also, I see people whoa, freezing in their tracks a little bit. where do we go from here? And this is scary and exciting, but it’s this beautiful idea and opportunity. And so I personally, I’ve seen some hesitation, so I’d be curious what you see as well, Jason, in your world.

Jason Fishman: Yeah, so there’s a lot of different angles to answer this question. essentially as a marketer, I want to be able to reach the right audiences and offer them value through the offering, taking ’em down the funnel. I’ve worked with groups that bonus tokens alongside their equity on Reg CF campaigns. I’ve worked on various types of token sales. I’ve worked with cryptocurrency exchanges, and I think some of the fear, and I know we’ve talked about this, Scott, is what happens when things fail, right? Because mirror token, we’re talking an IOU and from a middleman, it’s not the stock. Sure the company may not survive, but what happens in those type of scenarios? I’ve seen massive organizations that I felt had all the right players and if you will, were too big to fail. Fail. I worked with some of the cryptocurrency exchanges that overextended themself and then had lending clients go default on their loans, and it tumbled the whole thing. And again, all the right people involved, not fraudulent activity. Just when one domino chip fell, all these other groups in the space fell.

And I think that’s in the background for a lot of the people. Analyzing from the Web3 perspective and from the regulated investment crowdfunding standpoint, for us it’s about capital formation. Sure. All sides of the table founders getting access to investors, access to capital, investors getting access to early stage, growth stage. I like to say deal flow. I think it’s an amazing thing and I get a little bit of fear around these instruments ’cause it could sour the waters for everyone involved. Could even lead for bad actors. There’s ways where this can be manipulated or at least left with a lot of people holding the bag I’ve given my thoughts to the CfPA. I know we’re putting different notes out there. but I think it all comes down to transparency. It all comes down to audience building. It all comes down to that relationship with the founder and speaking to their audience and how that’s tracking, how they’re pushing them to different vehicles. So if it’s a token in this market, if it’s straight equity in a different market, the tracking that Claudio was mentioning as well too, if you own your audience, you’re going to be able to see a lot more of their actions in general. And I know there’s different blinders for different markets around it. So at the end of the day, I think the one-to-one, one to many, but from the one instead of a middleman relationship is ideal. And what we’re all seeking out.

Scott McIntyre: Yeah, I think closing that gap is big. one thing I will say is, ’cause the word transparency has appeared many times today. My opinion on transparency is without enforcement, it’s just marketing by another name. So I really, I caution you as you’re all contemplating the international waters, I think. I think that international investors are going to see it a lot more from my perspective than American investors do.

American investors have a certain amount of luxury in that the retail investor marketplace is so big and so deep here that these are just seen more as gambles. They’re just seen as, oh, I’ll throw a little money at that, a little money at that. Because we do have more disposable income perhaps than other countries might have at this stage anyway, at least for now. Anyway. So I think that’s where the import on mirror tokens is particularly contrasted. Tokenization in general is a vehicle for easing and creating more fluidity, I think is fine. But when you’re talking about mirror tokens on a company that’s not even public yet, without firsthand information, it’s just, it’s such a classic Wall Street. Just sell, don’t worry about it. Just sell. And that troubles the crap out of me. So I will say that.

So any other thoughts, folks on, any one piece of advice? I’ll leave this out to all three of you. Any one piece of advice you have on maximizing global investor conversion? If there was one piece of advice, what would it be? Leave us with something to quote you on. Yeah, Sarah.

Sarah Hardwick: I would say go all in on values and build a movement that is bigger than you that people can believe in. That paints a picture of what the future is going to be like and really double down in your why and your purpose.

Scott McIntyre: Okay. Claudio?

Claudio Grimoldi: I would say. Don’t look, don’t look for the tool or the instrument to raise money, but do something that people are looking for and do something relevant. When do you do something relevant and everything is getting easier. So you can get easily way to sell yourself, easily way to sell your company itself. And then you will understand if you’re going to do a lending or equity organization, whatever, instrument or whatever you’re looking for, because people will follow easier, the project itself, because it’s something interesting for the market itself.

Scott McIntyre: And Jason.

Jason Fishman: Do more intelligently, but do more. When I look at the success rates in the space. They’re not high, higher than offline, but when I analyze those deals, they didn’t have enough eyeballs. And from the right people have your traffic projections, have your messaging to walk ’em through it. Understand people don’t under, people don’t really know what regulated investment crowdfunding is, or whatever it may be called in a different market. I have to explain it to people every day. I’ve done so for the past nine years. You really have to be educational in the process. So traffic, messaging, variance, conversations with experts in the space, do more.

Scott McIntyre: Very good. Very good. I’m going to close here. Before I hand it off, Andy, let me apologize to you again, my friend, for the gargantuan editing effort that this, all these diversions will cause you. As an editor myself, video editor myself, I appreciate that’s most of the work of video production, sadly is in the editing. So again, my apologies.

and to Jason, to Sarah and Claudio, thank you so much for your valuable insights. I know that sounds token in itself, it’s not, you guys have been doing the work and the fact that you’re putting yourselves out there as volunteers and contributing to even a program like this is really meaningful.

And I hope that we can all promote this this video and all the others from GECA because it is really important what we’re doing. Trust, preparation, education. These are all themes that I heard today. And for founders, the takeaway is quite clear. Use data to your advantage, but more than anything, make sure that your transparency is authentic and you’re ready to withstand the type of scrutiny and enforcement that will certainly come from the crowd.

If there’s one thing we know that the crowd’s good at, it’s finding a flaw. It’s like your mom, she looks you right in the eyes. So for all of us, in the crowdfunding ecosystem, the opportunity is to keep refining these tools and the strategies that make cross-border investment simpler, safer, and more compelling.

So thank you all very much for joining us. Thank you, Andy, for hosting us, and we look forward to seeing you again next time.

Andy Field: Thank you. Scott, I just want to say, and thank you so much. I’ve learned so much as well. Scott expertly summarized it. I don’t think there’ll be too much editing. I like the way the conversation flows like that. It’s great. Good. But as Scott says, we’re going to be revising some of the topics. We’ve only scratched the surface of here. And my summary would be very much the same. The same themes are coming up across this whole series, regularly. Transparency helps the all important story build, and that gives trust and that’s crucial.

Founders have got to be open, honest, relevant. We’ve just spoken about the universal values and sentiment analysis that Sarah talked about are obviously crucial. And Scott talked about founder, competitor analysis being crucial, and AI and other technology can help that. So look, the marketing challenges from translation to differences in regulatory frameworks to cultural differences, they’re all there and they all need to be addressed.

And that has to happen when planning a campaign that’s going to be run internationally. So whilst there are loads of differences. The marketing fundamentals will probably still remain the same. The webinars, the long form content, the retargeting ads, they’re relevant. They’ll they’re consistent, they’ll always be there.

As well as, of course, good old fashioned face-to-face communication because remembering that people invest in people, and that’s one of the key messages that I took from that. So thank you all so much. We really appreciate it and we’re speaking to you again soon no doubt, to carry on the conversation. Thank you.

by GECA

The $1 Trillion Opportunity: How Secondary Market Innovation Can Unlock Global Crowdfunding Liquidity

GECA — A Strategic Analysis of Expert Insights from GECA’s Architects of Change Panel

Discussion Paper for Consultation — This article synthesizes insights from GECA’s “Architects of Change” panel (Moderator: Devin Thorpe; Panelists: Chris Lustrino – Kingscrowd , Scott McIntyre – WEconomy/ Crowdfunding Professional Association, Nora Szeles – Tokeportal.com, Neera Patel – Dacxi Chain). Statistics and estimates reflect panel discussion and require empirical validation. This is not a GECA policy statement.

Executive Summary

The global equity crowdfunding industry stands at a critical inflection point where liquidity - or the lack thereof - represents both its greatest challenge and most significant opportunity. Insights from leading industry practitioners suggest that secondary-market development could unlock a trillion-dollar opportunity by transforming crowdfunding from an illiquid investment class into a dynamic ecosystem that rivals traditional capital markets.

Key Strategic Findings

  • Market Velocity Crisis: ~70–80% of investors prefer accessible liquidity options (panel estimate; to be validated), while capital typically remains locked for 3–10+ years, creating systemic velocity constraints.
  • Trust Infrastructure Gap: Current secondary venues often lack transparent valuation mechanisms; StartEngine’s secondary posting board illustrates information asymmetry challenges when listings show a name and price but little decision support.
  • Regulatory Fragmentation Costs: Platforms navigate a complex global legal patchwork; in the EU, ECSPR alignment helps, but some manual compliance elements still undermine efficiency gains.
  • Technology Readiness vs. Adoption: Blockchain can enable embedded compliance and atomic settlement, but regulatory hesitancy and UX considerations slow adoption.
  • Generational Liquidity Demand: Liquidity preference is situational, not purely generational - younger investors can be equally or more liquidity-sensitive, influenced by crypto’s always-on trading.

Design Options for Working-Group Evaluation

The following are options and hypotheses for GECA working groups to evaluate; they are not GECA policy or directives.

  • Valuation & Transparency Layer: Pilot standardized, data-driven pricing signals and a minimum-disclosure pack for secondary eligibility.
  • Bilateral Recognition Pilots: Explore principle-based mutual recognition (e.g., KYC/AML attestations, disclosure baselines) with one or two compatible regulators.
  • Embedded Compliance (Tech-Enabled): Test where smart-contract logic can automate transfer restrictions - without imposing crypto-native UX on retail investors.
  • Distribution Pathways: Assess light integrations with major brokerages/RIAs (data syndication, guided hand-offs) to broaden reach and price discovery.
  • Trust-First Market Design: Prioritize ratings/verification, auditability, and transparent dispute resolution ahead of raw transaction speed.

The Liquidity-Velocity Challenge: Quantifying Market Constraints

“The velocity of the market is very slow today. A lot of people enter the market and then they go back to sitting on the sidelines waiting for something to happen.” — Chris Lustrino

Investors often expect returns within 1–2 years despite being advised to anticipate 10–15-year holding periods. When exits don’t materialize, many pause new allocations until they see actual liquidity from existing positions. Lustrino estimates 70–80% of investors (panel estimate; to be validated) want liquidity regardless of age cohort.

He hypothesizes that predictable partial liquidity - e.g., the ability to sell 15–30% of a portfolio annually - could materially increase participation:

“When you create a functioning secondary market where you have a good amount of predictability that each year you can sell at least 15, 20, 30% of your overall portfolio, you're going to see way more participants in the market.”

The Trust Infrastructure Deficit: Information Asymmetry as a Market Barrier

“Trust is the actual currency of any marketplace. Ratings and transparency are what makes trust tradable.” — Scott McIntyre

Today’s secondary listings are often thin on decision-quality data. As Lustrino noted about StartEngine’s secondary posting board, many offers show just a name and a price - not enough context for a fair decision. McIntyre argued that standardized data - comparable financials, consistent definitions, and verified disclosures - reduces information asymmetry, especially across cultures and languages.

Why thin data hurts pricing

  • Inconsistent disclosures make relative value opaque.
  • Retail investors face higher error risk without verified comparables.
  • Sparse context depresses confidence and market velocity.

A practical research layer (what “good” looks like)

Lustrino outlined a workable model: use recent filings and peer fundamentals to produce valuation “green zones”—ranges where risk/return looks reasonable—giving buyers and sellers shared reference points.

Regulatory Architecture: Three Hurdles to Global Implementation

Neera Patel highlighted three structural hurdles:

  1. Global Legal Patchwork - Multiple, sometimes conflicting securities rules across jurisdictions multiply compliance cost and complexity.
  2. Exchange vs. Bulletin Board Classification - Crossing into “unregistered exchange” territory triggers heavier obligations; many venues default to manual bulletin boards to stay compliant.
  3. Cross-Jurisdictional Compliance & Custody - KYC/AML, asset custody, and transfer rules vary widely and scale poorly across borders.

ECSPR: Progress and paradox

Patel views ECSPR as a strong blueprint (single license; shared rules) that improves cross-border raising. Yet Nora Szeles flagged the “ECSPR paradox”: regulators created the market, but independent, often cash-flow-negative startups must both build it and educate regulators. National implementations and ICT expectations can still feel modeled on incumbents, not startups.

Technology Infrastructure: Blockchain Capabilities vs. Implementation Reality

Where blockchain helps

  • Embedded compliance: Smart contracts can enforce transfer restrictions and eligibility.
  • Atomic settlement & audit trails: Faster, more transparent cross-border settlement; zero-knowledge proofs for privacy-preserving verification.
  • Self-custody options: Direct ownership pathways where appropriate.

Why explainability still wins

“Is this the tail wagging the dog?” — Scott McIntyre

McIntyre cautioned that technology must earn trust through clarity and accountability, not just speed. Lustrino added that distribution may matter more than chain-selection:

“The market goes to the stratosphere when Robinhood/SoFi/Schwab/Fidelity put these opportunities into brokerage accounts and advisors’ toolkits.”

Potential Industry Impact: The Democratization Dividend - and Small-Company Concerns

“Liquidity heightens inclusion… it also creates the conditions for community wealth building.” — Scott McIntyre

Secondary markets can help small investors diversify, recycle capital, and support more local ventures. But Devin Thorpe raised a real risk: micro-issuers (e.g., $50k–$200k raises) might face valuation volatility and “stock-price management” pressure.

McIntyre acknowledged we need evidence from real market microstructures to judge effects—especially for very small companies where investor sentiment can move prices more than fundamentals.

The Crypto Conditioning Effect: How Digital Assets Shape Liquidity Expectations

“Why does everyone want to invest in crypto? There’s extreme liquidity—you could buy and sell at any moment.” — Chris Lustrino

Crypto’s 24/7 trading recalibrated retail expectations. Many investors “don’t realize the difference between startups and this,” Lustrino noted. Designing secondary markets means balancing liquidity access with startup realities, so features don’t induce inappropriate pressure or unrealistic return timing.

Cross-Border Settlement Efficiency: The Correspondent-Banking Problem

Neera Patel underscored how multi-hop correspondent banking can turn small cross-border trades into slow, uneconomic transactions. Blockchain rails could compress hops and enable near-real-time settlement - if regulators and banks provide clear on/off-ramps.

Education as Infrastructure: Beyond Investor Awareness

“Education comes first… most investors should be aware that startups are long-term investments.” — Nora Szeles

Four audiences need tailored education:

  • Investors: timelines, risk, portfolio construction, and secondary mechanics.
  • Issuers: IR discipline, disclosure cadence, and how secondary activity affects operations and valuation.
  • Regulators: how transparency/standardization in secondaries can enhance investor protection.
  • Advisors/Intermediaries: portfolio fit and product governance for retail.

Key Areas Requiring Industry Attention

Market Velocity & Behavior: Balance investor liquidity needs with startup financing stability (e.g., partial liquidity windows, transparent pricing, realistic education).

Information Asymmetry: Move beyond minimal disclosure to standardized data, consistent valuation rubrics, third-party verification, and investor-usable research.

Cross-Border Coordination: Explore mutual recognition and principle-based supervision; test automated compliance where regulators permit.

Technology & Distribution: Build for explainability and partner with mainstream brokerage/advisory channels; adopt blockchain where it confers clear operational gains without adding UX friction.

Trust Infrastructure: Implement ratings, verification, auditable processes, and clear dispute resolution - trust is the market’s base currency.

Economic Impact: Quantifying the Trillion-Dollar Opportunity

(Scenario inputs for discussion; require validation and further research.)

  • Liquidity Premium: Companies with credible secondary access may command ~20–40% valuation uplifts vs. illiquid peers.
  • Participation Expansion: Liquidity confidence could increase investor deployment 3–5×, lifting total capital by 200–400% among current participants.
  • Market Entry Acceleration: Reduced illiquidity barriers could expand the investor base 5–10×.
  • Cross-Border Flows: EU–US alone could unlock $50B+ of currently constrained cross-border participation.
  • Institutional On-Ramps: Secondary infrastructure that meets institutional standards could invite pensions/endowments that are otherwise constrained by illiquidity.

Critical Risks & Mitigations

Small-Company Valuation Pressure

  • Holding-period requirements before secondary eligibility
  • Company-controlled windows vs. continuous trading (for micro-issuers)
  • Minimum information standards to list
  • Investor education (or suitability gates) for secondaries

Technology Complexity & Trust

  • Prioritize explainability; retain human oversight
  • Full audit trails and independent dispute resolution
  • Independent ratings/verification to reduce “black box” dynamics

Regulatory Backlash

  • Continuous regulator dialogue; guardrails exceeding minimum rules
  • Phased pilots in sandboxes; strong investor education
  • Collaborative industry standards via neutral bodies (e.g., GECA)

First-Mover Dynamics

  • Platforms, jurisdictions, and tech providers that establish liquidity, compliance, and data moats may capture durable network effects.

Conclusion: Toward Trust-First Secondary Market Development

Mainstream adoption likely depends less on a single technology and more on trust, transparency, and distribution. As Lustrino noted, the tipping point arrives when secondary access and research are embedded in familiar brokerage experiences. McIntyre reminds us: without accountability and verifiable transparency, enthusiasm fades and velocity stalls.

Given the interdependencies - regulation, technology, market design, and education - progress will come from iterative pilots, not a single, predetermined framework. This discussion paper aims to inform GECA-led working groups as they evaluate focused experiments that serve investors, issuers, platforms, and regulators - and advance the democratization of capital globally.

Next Steps & Participation

GECA will convene working groups (Liquidity, Policy & Standards, Technology) to scope 2–3 near-term pilots (e.g., a valuation-transparency prototype; a microstructure/liquidity-window trial; a KYC reciprocity sandbox). Stakeholders interested in contributing can register interest at thegeca.org.

Ready to explore the full discussion? Watch the complete Architects of Change panel where industry leaders examine the future of global equity crowdfunding: Breaking Down Borders - Full Discussion

Join the movement for borderless investment. GECA brings together platforms, regulators, and industry stakeholders to advance global equity crowdfunding. Learn more about membership opportunities and help shape the industry's future: thegeca.org/membership-app-form

by GECA

GECA Welcomes African Investment Pioneer Meseret Warner: Bridging Diaspora Capital with Continental Innovation

Ethiopia's equity crowdfunding trailblazer joins steering committee to unlock Africa's $80+ billion annual diaspora remittance potential for entrepreneurial growth

The Global Equity Crowdfunding Alliance (GECA) is proud to announce that Meseret Warner, Founder and Managing Director of Ignite Investment, has joined our steering committee as a strategic advisor. This pivotal appointment brings one of Africa's most innovative crowdfunding pioneers to GECA's mission of creating truly borderless equity investment markets.

Meseret's appointment represents a strategic expansion of GECA's global vision, introducing critical expertise in diaspora capital mobilization and emerging market development. As the architect of Ethiopia's first equity crowdfunding platform, she brings proven experience in navigating complex regulatory environments while building sustainable investment ecosystems that connect local entrepreneurs with global capital.

From Refugee to Financial Revolutionary

Meseret Warner's extraordinary journey from teenage refugee to pioneering fintech entrepreneur embodies the transformative power of resilient innovation. After being separated from her family during political upheaval in Ethiopia and spending time in a Kenyan refugee camp, she received a scholarship to study and live in Canada - one of only few refugees selected from hundreds of applicants.

This early experience of overcoming seemingly impossible circumstances shaped her approach to problem-solving and her unwavering commitment to creating opportunities for others. "Every challenge I encounter teaches me to be more resourceful and never give up," Meseret reflects. "I learned that instead of saying 'I cannot do this,' I ask 'How about I try this?' That mindset has been fundamental to everything I've built."

Building Africa's Investment Crowdfunding Infrastructure

Meseret's professional foundation spans over two decades of global experience across technology, development, and financial services. Her career trajectory includes pivotal roles at Statistics Canada, where she developed expertise in data systems, IT solutions and economic analysis, and subsequent positions with the United Nations and Ethiopian Central Statistical Agency, where she led technology modernization initiatives.

This diverse background culminated in 2016 with the founding of Ignite Investment with initial experimentation of non-traditional financing mechanisms and launching in 2022Ethiopia's first equity crowdfunding platform designed specifically to channel diaspora capital into high-growth African enterprises. Under her leadership, Ignite has pioneered innovative approaches to cross-border investment that address critical financing gaps for startups and SMEs across the continent.

Unlocking Diaspora Capital Potential

Meseret's vision centers on redirecting a portion of the $80+ billion in annual African diaspora remittances toward productive investment rather than traditional consumption. This strategic approach recognizes that Ethiopian diaspora alone contributes over $3 billion annually - capital that could transform the entrepreneurial landscape when channeled through structured investment platforms.

"Africa attracted $6.4 billion in venture capital in 2022, but that represents less than 2% of global venture investment," Meseret explains. "Meanwhile, our diaspora sends $80 billion home annually. Ignite's mission is to bridge this financing gap by creating trustworthy mechanisms where diaspora investors can see real impact while supporting continental growth."

Her platform has demonstrated remarkable success in this approach, with 65% of entrepreneurs raising capital being women-led enterprises, directly addressing gender disparities in access to investment capital across African markets.

Regulatory Innovation and Market Development

Operating within Ethiopia's regulatory framework, Meseret has navigated complex local and the U.S. compliance requirements while building the institutional relationships necessary for sustainable crowdfunding operations. Her partnerships with Zemen Bank, GIZ (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit), and the African Development Bank demonstrate her ability to create comprehensive innovative financial infrastructure that supports both investors and entrepreneurs.

Recent achievements include facilitating a multi-million dollar joint venture between MACCFA Freight Logistics and global giant CEVA Logistics - marking only the second significant foreign direct investment in Ethiopia's logistics sector. This success illustrates her capacity to coordinate complex international transactions that create lasting economic impact.

Expertise in Gender-Smart Investing

Meseret's commitment to women's economic empowerment extends beyond her platform operations to her broader professional engagements. As former President of the African Women Entrepreneur Program (AWEP) Ethiopia Chapter and recent Women's Economic Empowerment Technical Advisor for GIZ-funded initiatives, she has consistently championed policies and programs that increase women's participation in entrepreneurship and investment.

Her work with GOPA Worldwide Consultants on strengthening Ethiopia's Business Development Services market included designing the country's first technology-enabled voucher-based service delivery model, expanding affordable access to business development support for underserved entrepreneurs, particularly women-led enterprises.

Academic and International Experience

Meseret's educational foundation includes a Bachelor's degree in Computer Science and Mathematics from the University of Regina and a Master's in Globalization and Development from the University of Manchester. This academic background, combined with her entrepreneurial experience in the Bizdom Cleveland accelerator, provides both theoretical understanding and practical knowledge of global investment markets.

Her international experience spans humanitarian work with UN OCHA in Pakistan, technical and advisory roles in Canada and Ethiopia, and startup development in the United States, creating a unique perspective on how investment flows can be optimized across different economic and regulatory environments.

Strategic Vision for Global Crowdfunding

Meseret's appointment to GECA's steering committee comes at a critical moment as the organization works to establish harmonized standards and facilitate cross-border investment flows. Her expertise in emerging market dynamics, diaspora engagement, and regulatory navigation provides essential insights for GECA's mission to create truly borderless equity crowdfunding.

"I'm honored to join GECA's steering committee during this transformative period for global equity crowdfunding," Meseret commented. "Throughout my career, I've seen how innovative financing models can unlock entrepreneurial potential while creating sustainable economic development. GECA's vision for borderless investment aligns perfectly with our work to redirect diaspora capital toward productive enterprises that drive continental growth."

Andrew Field, Head of GECA's steering committee, noted: "Meseret brings exactly the type of innovative thinking and market-building expertise that GECA needs to advance our global vision. Her success in mobilizing diaspora capital and creating sustainable investment ecosystems provides a proven model for how equity crowdfunding can transcend traditional geographic boundaries while maintaining appropriate investor protection."

Advancing African Financial Innovation

As GECA continues expanding its global influence, Meseret's expertise in African markets and diaspora capital mobilization will prove invaluable for developing strategies that address the continent's unique opportunities and challenges. Her proven ability to build trust between investors and entrepreneurs across geographical and cultural boundaries aligns perfectly with GECA's mission to create efficient, transparent global investment markets.

Her work demonstrates that successful international crowdfunding requires more than technological platforms - it demands deep understanding of cultural and market dynamics, regulatory requirements, and the institutional relationships necessary to build sustainable investment ecosystems.

Building Tomorrow's Investment Landscape

With Meseret Warner's addition to our steering committee alongside other recent strategic appointments, GECA is assembling the comprehensive expertise needed to address equity crowdfunding's most complex challenges. Her appointment brings critical perspectives on emerging market development, diaspora capital mobilization, and gender-inclusive investment strategies.

"The future of African economic development lies in entrepreneurship, investment, and trade rather than traditional aid models," Meseret emphasizes. "I'm excited to work with GECA's global network to ensure that Africa's vast entrepreneurial potential receives the capital and support necessary to create sustainable prosperity across the continent."

As we welcome Meseret to our steering committee, we're reminded that the path to borderless equity crowdfunding requires not just regulatory innovation, but also the cultural intelligence and market-building expertise that enables confident investment decisions across diverse global markets.

The appointment of Meseret Warner signals that GECA is not just planning for the future of global equity crowdfunding - we're building it with the expertise and institutional relationships necessary to unlock investment potential across every continent.

About GECA

The Global Equity Crowdfunding Alliance (GECA) is an international organization dedicated to advancing regulatory harmonization, market development, and best practices in equity crowdfunding worldwide. Learn more at thegeca.org.

Contact: For media inquiries about GECA's steering committee appointments and global initiatives, please contact the steering committee at: contact@thegeca.org

Want to join GECA's mission? Visit thegeca.org/join to learn about supporter opportunities for platforms, service providers, and industry stakeholders.

 

 

 

by GECA

The $1 Trillion Opportunity: Building Liquidity Through Innovation for Crowdfunding

The $1 Trillion Opportunity: Building Liquidity Through Innovation for Crowdfunding

Could secondary market liquidity unlock crowdfunding’s next growth phase? In this GECA Architects of Change panel, industry leaders explore how trust-first trading infrastructure, regulatory harmonization, and technology innovation can transform investor participation and capital velocity. Watch for actionable insights on valuation transparency, cross-border frameworks, and mainstream distribution strategies.

ALSO AVAILABLE ON

Share this article

  • X
  • black x

Episode 4 – The $1 Trillion Opportunity: Building Liquidity Through Innovation

Theme: Secondary Markets / Liquidity
 Moderator: Devin Thorpe (Founder, Superpowers for Good; Founder & CEO, The SuperCrowd)
 Panelists: Chris Lustrino (Founder & CEO, KingsCrowd); Scott McIntyre (Co-founder, WEconomy; Vice-Chair, CfPA US; GECA Steering Committee); Nora Szeles (Co-founder, Tokeportal.com); Neera Patel (Product Lead, Dacxi Chain)

Devin Thorpe — Moderator Founder of Superpowers for Good and CEO of SuperCrowd. A seasoned author and speaker focused on impact investing, social entrepreneurship, and sustainability. Devin has interviewed 1200+ thought leaders and innovators, organizing industry events and building global networks around positive change and accessible capital markets.

Chris Lustrino Founder and CEO of KingsCrowd, the leading data and analytics platform for equity crowdfunding. With deep expertise in investor behavior analysis and market transparency, Chris provides Morningstar-style insights for private markets, helping investors make informed decisions through comprehensive company ratings and market research.

Scott McIntyre Co-founder of WEconomy, Vice-Chair of the Crowdfunding Professional Association (CfPA) board, and GECA Steering Committee member. Scott champions trust, transparency, and investor protection in alternative finance while implementing equitable social and financial movements through innovative tools that establish thriving regional economies.

Nora Szeles Co-founder of TokePortal, one of Hungary’s first equity crowdfunding platforms with expanded presence in Malta. With a capital markets background as former derivative trader and fund manager, Nora brings practical insights on making liquidity solutions scalable and accessible for both entrepreneurs and retail investors.

Neera Patel Product Lead at Dacxi Chain, a technology company focused on enabling crowdfunding platforms to scale effectively across global markets. Neera specializes in frameworks that balance investor protection with innovation, working extensively on legal infrastructure requirements for global secondary market implementation.

Andy Field: Hello everyone. I’m Andy Field, and welcome to the Architects of Change Think Tank Series, a series of five roundtable discussions, all with subjects that align with one of the GECA core pillars. Now, GECA stands for Global Equity Crowdfunding Alliance, and our supporters all share one vision, which is a truly borderless, global equity ecosystem.

One of the biggest deterrence to investor participation is lack of liquidity and exit options. One of our pillars detailed in a manifesto is to strive for a thriving secondary market right across the globe where investors can trade their equity and liquidity unlocks bigger participation, higher reinvestment rates, and long-term sustainability.

So we’ll be exploring in this conversation how liquidity can strengthen platforms by boosting the investor retention, increasing deal sizes, and enabling long-term growth. And in doing so, we’re going to discuss practical solutions and the legal frameworks that can make all of this possible. And we’ve called this session the Trillion Dollar Opportunity | Building Liquidity Through Innovation.

That’s more than enough from me. I’d like to introduce our moderator for today’s discussion. Please welcome Devin Thorpe, who as well as being a great friend of GECA. Devin’s a seasoned author and speaker, and he’s built a global reputation around the themes of impact investing, social entrepreneurship, and sustainability.

He’s the founder of SuperPowers for the Good Show and podcast. He’s interviewed more than 1200 thought leaders, innovators, and change makers from around the world, and organized many industry events as founder and CEO of the SuperCrowd. So his expertise and passion make him the perfect person to guide today’s conversation.

So welcome, Devin, and over to you to introduce our participants today.

Devin Thorpe: Thank you so much, Andy. It’s really an honor to be here and I really appreciate the opportunity and the invitation. Good evening everyone, and welcome to this round table in our Architects of Change – Think Tank series. Today we’ll be diving into that liquidity topic that Andy mentioned and for a lot of people, I think this is the barrier. This is what’s keeping them out of the pool, both as investors and sometimes even as issuers, raising capital from the crowd fearing that there won’t be sufficient capital there because of that locked in nature of it. And the statute, even in the United States, anticipates a secondary market that really hasn’t developed.

So this is really an intriguing topic for conversation to explore what are the barriers, and figure out how we break those barriers down and deliver a genuine secondary market. Now, let me introduce our panelists. We’ve got. Wow, this is a powerhouse panel. You’re going to be thrilled and enjoy this discussion because we have some of the world experts on this topic with us.

Chris Lustrino founder and CEO of KingsCrowd. There are not many players, bigger and more important to the crowdfunding industry globally than Chris Lustrino…he’s a big deal. He brings deep insights into investor behavior, data transparency, and has been watching the market with the savvy of Morningstar himself personally for years. And so this is really, I think, a tremendous asset to the conversation. Chris, thank you for being here.

Scott McIntyre. Who long served as the chairman of the crowdfunding Professional Association as one of the earliest members of the board, and has been helping to lead that charge in the United States for a long time now leads, as the co-founder of WE Economy an Ohio based Nonprofit implementing an equitable social and financial movement, powered by a revolutionary set of tools that help establish thriving regional economies and today serves as the vice chair of the board of directors of the CfPA. He has been a leading advocate for trust, transparency, and investor protection and alternative finance, and brings a deep perspective on how these standards can shape secondary markets. Scott, thank you for being here.

Nora Szeles is here from, she’s a co-founder of TokePortal, which was one of the first platform in Hungary to launch equity-based crowdfunding and has since developed a presence in Malta as well. Nora will share how innovation can make liquidity solutions practical, scalable, and accessible for both entrepreneurs and investors. So critical. Nora, thank you for being here and being a part of this discussion.

And Neera Patel. Is the product lead at Dacxi Chain, a tech company working to give access to crowdfunding platforms across the globe, to scale effectively. Neera has worked extensively on frameworks that balance investor protection with innovation so important and she’ll help us understand what kind of legal infrastructure can make global secondary markets a reality.

With this powerhouse panel, we are, we’ll, explore some of the theory of liquidity, but also I want to get into some of the mechanics, the nuts and bolts. Let’s figure out how this will work from a regulatory standpoint, a technology standpoint. Wow, there’s so much to dig into here. Let’s get started.

I think we have set, we’ve sketched already. Something of an overview of what the problem is, but if someone invests in a deal on Wefunder or any other portal around the world, if there is no way to sell those shares until a liquidity event occurs and the issuer redeems or provides that return, that capital can be tied up for a long time, easily a decade in the extreme case or beyond. And many investors are just not in a position to make that kind of indefinite commitment of capital. And trying to figure out how to create the regulatory structure and the technology and in some cases, the need for cross border kinds of transactions.

We gotta just jump in here. I’m going to start with you, Chris. You have just such a tremendous perspective from your work at KingsCrowd. You built this to be a portal, a view into this new marketplace and so there are few people on the planet that have anything like your perspective. How do you see liquidity solutions making this better for issuers and investors.

Chris Lustrino: Yeah, it’s a great question. It’s a very loaded question. There’s a lot there, at the most basic level, right? I talk about a word called velocity, right? The velocity of the market. And what do I mean by that right now, money goes in and then to your point, Devin, it can sit there for 3, 5, 8, 10 years plus. And so what often happens is investors will make their investments. And then they’re waiting to see what happens. And especially the first go around. Often times they, no matter how much people tell ’em, it’ll take 10, 12, 15 years, they still think it should be one or two years MAX. And when the money doesn’t get returned. Now they’re like, I’m on the sidelines until this thing exits, right? Until I have some form of liquidity coming from this market. How do I know I should make more investments until I see a real return? All of these things come up, right? And so the velocity of the market is very slow today. A lot of people enter the market. And then they go back to sitting on the sidelines waiting for something to happen. And that’s just one of the many issues.

For those who are active investors, they invest in a business or maybe 10 or 15 or 20. But then again, until they start seeing even some returns, which often takes at least three to five years to see your first exits. And they’re not going to be the biggest ones. Maybe they’re returning 2, 3, 4, maybe 5X. And because of that, they just have to be careful with how they allocate their portfolio, right? So all of this is to say is as long as the market is wholly illiquid, then investors are going to be hesitant to continue to move money.

Now, when you create a functioning secondary market where you have a good amount of predictability that each year you can sell at least 15, 20, 30% of your overall portfolio. You’re not going to be comfortable moving a lot of money. What I believe will happen is that over the next 10 or 15 years, as liquidity becomes totally mainstreamed in the private markets, and you could post your shares at any time and sell them whenever you feel like it after you’ve held them for a year is we’ll see an incredible increase in the number of deals people are investing in because they’ll be investing into and out of deals all the time. And by the way, people will be okay to take a loss at times if it means that they can reinvest somewhere where they see now better potential than that other deal they did three years ago where they just don’t see it anymore.

So I do think that as we see liquidity increase in this market in a really substantial way, you’re going to see way more participants in the market and those who are participating in the market will spend a lot less time sitting on the sidelines. And all that means is more primary raises are going to be getting better funding along the way as well. So to me there’s a lot of exciting characteristics. I didn’t even get into all sorts of things around. I think better reporting will come about all sorts of stuff, but I’ll stop there.

Devin Thorpe: That’s great that really helps us to put a little color on that sketch that we’d created. Nora, from your experience with TokePortal, what key things play a part in making liquidity solutions practical and affordable for the issuers and their investors?

Nora Szeles: Yes, my background is in capital markets. I used to be a derivative trader and the fund manager where liquidity took it all. So when the liquidity was at, what came first place. So it was extremely important to provide liquidity, to enter liquid markets, etc to be able to close out the position anytime and realize the value or they trade, etc.

However, I’ve always been conscious about the differences between these market segments. So I believe that most startup investors are expected or are definitely aware of their long-term dedication to these startups. Although of course, absolutely agree that they cannot be locked up in this, in these investments and that liquidity is absolutely self-evident issue.

However, the approach and the investment strategy or the investment decision making, has different, based, it’s based on different arguments and how, but to be competitive also from more crowdfunding service providers. This is also a driving force behind behind making secondary trading available for investors.

So I absolutely, so in the end of the day, that matters a lot. However, I do believe that education should help make and to help investors make informed decisions and conscious decisions. And but what is extremely important to emphasize that crowdfunding as a result of micro investments create mini portfolios. And to that extent, any transaction that costs a lot more money or either in costs or in a timely manner, can absolutely decrease or eliminate any prospect profits. So if you don’t, if we don’t offer them an efficient secondary market, then the whole concept is is broken.

So in the end of the day, so to say, I totally agree that the liquidity and the service behind that to create to enable trading secondary trading for crowd investors matter a lot and technology comes into play because without, if it was handmade as it was in my broker time, so to say, not only, They not even Demat securities were as common as today. This would’ve been completely ruined. So thanks to crowdfunding, thanks to regulation and thanks to digitalization. Now we are in a position to really, first. Participating panels that discuss the importance of this and technology enables us to do so regulations should be good enough to give a framework which, where crowdfunding service providers can create the market. And I will have other things to add at the later point of time of this discussion. I think so.

In general, I think education comes first and technology shall help investors realize their exit, but that also, most investors should be aware that startups are long-term investments. And the textbook case always happens that whatever, a nine out of 10 or 19 out of 20, what whichever you like, would then fail. And in case of bad news, liquidities anyway, even, even much less or doesn’t exist at all if the startup doesn’t perform well. So it has several pillars. The same problem has to be considered or approached from several points, perspective, so to say.

Devin Thorpe: That’s, I really appreciate that take Nora. I think, starting with education is really vital and that’s a great segue to the question I have for Scott. Scott, you’ve been long focused on building trust. That’s just so important to your work both at the CfPA and WE Economy. It’s about transparency. How do these kinds of standards, rating systems, etc, feed into developing a secondary market?

Scott McIntyre: That’s a pretty deep question. Devin, so I have a lot of thoughts in the matter. I wanted to start with trust, though, and this is what the first subject that really came true is that when you’re building with trust and as with all buildings, they require a solid foundation. So I’d prefer to first address the foundation of any investment. Which is trust and we’ll get to transparency and obviously the issues of standards and and accountability that that follow.

But to illustrate what I mean, one of the things that has kept me volunteering, as you mentioned for the last 13 years now, much to the bewilderment of my wife, is that the CfPA’s role in helping craft an equitable marketplace, especially in the light of a somewhat shadowy world of finance at times, one’s intent is very easily concealed as to who pays you to sell their wares. So one thing that I’ve really enjoyed in the last 13 years of service to our new industry is that I trust my partners at the CfPA because their self-interest is not related to money. It’s not related to what they’re getting paid or who’s paying them, but rather the epic of shared access to opportunity. Really is the base of our opportunity to spread the opportunities for crowdfunding to more nations than currently have it. And that’s the work of GECA, which is what attracted me and Andy called.

So as an all volunteer trade group, I hope that the CfPA is a good model for providing nothing but truth and transparency to the crowd. So in respect to trust, trust is the actual currency. Of any marketplace, and this is after 10 years of research in my other nonprofit, on the nature of currency and how it underpins, sustainable, equality and opportunity for communities, to sustain themselves.

Ratings and transparency are what makes trust. Tradable. So without them, trust is a very fleeting ethic. And we started with the belief that trust enables opportunity and currencies are just the vehicle. And I think that’s why they’re called fiat for a reason. In a lot of cases, they really are valueless. Without that trust, without that agreement. So in over a thousand years, looking in the rear view, lacking any confidence in the veracity of information, I think particularly with investments, liquidity simply won’t flow.

But there’s also the issue of values and we don’t have to just mitigate different languages in this new goal for GECA, but cultures as well, which are based on values. So if anything has become brilliantly clear, at least in the last decade, there’s a lot more difference than just languages that separate us as nations that are hoping to collaborate in this new marketplace. So standardized data is a huge component of that, Devin, and it’s frankly what allows secondary platforms to price their securities efficiently, reduce asymmetry that you find with information that comes from different cultures and different perspectives, and typically disadvantages, especially small investors.

These things can be accomplished. Standardized data can be accomplished in both. The public marketplace and in the private sector through participation of associations like what the CfPA has shown in the US and hopefully as GECA now aspires to. So that’s a little bit, I have a lot more on the subject. I don’t want to…

Devin Thorpe: I appreciate you bringing that, Scott. ’cause I think you know, this concept of trust is essential and part of, I think what establishes trust. My view is some regulatory infrastructure. So Neera, I want to turn to you to look at a little bit at the regulatory hurdles that are impeding secondary trading and crowdfunding in the United States and in the EU. And to the extent you have the ability to foresee what’s a model that might work from a regulatory standpoint within borders, and then eventually what might work across borders. That’s a big. Big thing to tackle, but can you get us at least started in that direction?

Neera Patel: Yeah. Yeah. I think there are three sort of major, big hurdles that we need to overcome. And the first is obviously, the biggest hurdle is the global legal patchwork, as you call it. So you know, as a platform you must have to navigate across different sets of security financial laws, and that differs across different markets as well. So then that adds more and more complexity and I think the other is around whether you knew you, whether you want to be an exchange versus a bulletin board. That problem in itself, and regulators are very sensitive to whether a platform could be considered as an unregistered exchange. And so there’s a legal distinction that we need to overcome, whether you are a forum of buyers and sellers, such as a bulletin board. Or an automated trading venue, which is a very fine line and I think platforms have to be very careful on how they navigate through that.

And I think the third would probably be compliance and custody. when you come, when it comes to secondary markets, we, there is a strong requirement to build out a robust KYC and AML checks for every single participant on that secondary market. And so platforms have to also solve that complex issue again across different jurisdictions on how they actually hold and transfer assets within a regulated environment. So I think those are the three big, sort of big hurdles to overcome.

And when it comes to the models around which model is a really strong global roadmap. I think the EU has set a precedent around this. The EU’s ECSPR passporting is probably an exist, one of the best existing models out there at the minute and what they’ve actually done is created a unified legal framework. Together with a single license, which allows platforms to passport their services across EU member states. So I think, they’ve started off this journey and it’s working very well. This kind of model where you’ve regulated harmonization and clear cross border rules is a very strong blueprint for building trust and scaling those global markets. I think,

But there are still some restraints, even with under ECSPR. In order to remain compliant, platforms have to actually operate bulletin boards across a manual process, to remain compliant. And this is where human intervention is necessary, to complete the trade, or the deal. So even though you are avoiding regulatory burdens, it provides liquidity benefits, but it creates an inefficient marketplace. And we’re unable to deliver the alternative trading systems as the US have today. I’m sure that ECSPR is working very closely with MiCA (Markets in Crypto-Assets) bring this about and advance this further. So I think that the EU is a very strong case for this.

When it comes to the US, the US framework is a little bit more fragmented. They rely on a mixture of regulations from Reg CF and Reg A and while there’s no single passporting in the US, like they have in the EU, the framework for alternative trading systems is very strong and it’s very concise set of rules. So I think, they provide a very clear, albeit centralized path towards liquidity that I think other countries could really adopt. But there are still issues around the US. So for instance, you have to have a broker dealer license to set up an ATS platform, you have to become a member of FINRA and those are added costs. It also adds time to the development of your network or platform and in the SEC has actually brought about actions across a number of ATS platforms in the past. So there is a lot of regulatory uncertainty, but that being said, in August, just last month. SEC has announced the launch of Project crypto which is highly focused on really changing and diversifying and advancing the digital financial revolution for the US and with the mindset to fast track newer technologies. To really advance this space. So I think we need to keep a very close eye on what they do but in an ideal world, you’d want a bit of the passporting as well as automated trading systems or, to advance secondary markets going forward and to provide those exit options to investors and improve that liquidity.

Devin Thorpe: That’s a really good foundation for our discussion and I look forward to digging deeper on that, thank you. Chris, I want to come back to you. I’m intrigued by a notion, as likely certainly. I appear to be the oldest person alive certainly the oldest person on the call today. I’m not quite as old as I looked, but I’m intrigued by the differences that, that the perspectives that different individuals have at different points in life. And you’re really watching the investor mindset perhaps closer than any of us. I’m intrigued by what you might see in terms of that, those generational differences that folks my age are approaching retirement, thinking about that liquidity with some intensity are the young folks more open minded to keeping their investments for indefinite periods of time? Or are they as anxious about liquidity as we are?

Chris Lustrino: Yeah, I think the simple answer is they’re as anxious as you are and maybe even more anxious. I think this is more situational rather than age related. I think in aggregate, the most number of people in the market want accessible liquidity. The perfect example is it’s like, why is crypto, which, there’s so many facets of it that are fundamentally broken or maybe don’t have a ton of really good backing as to why it’s a good fundamental investment, but why does everyone down to invest in it? Well it’s gotten large and a big part of that is that there’s extreme liquidity you could buy and sell it at any moment in time. So when you see the value of your investment, go up today and you could sell it tomorrow or sell it in the next two minutes. You feel good about that? I just made money, right? Versus this is a buy and hold for a long period of time. There’s just far fewer people who are comfortable with that notion and the reason I say it’s situational is. We see older individuals that I’ve spoken with who say, I’m doing this for my legacy. I’m doing this for my kids and my grandkids. That’s what I’m making investments for. I probably won’t even be around to see this company exit, but I’m okay with that. And then you have older individuals who are saying, no, I need liquidity. I’m not going to hold on to anything because I’m never going to see it. And then there’s younger people who say, I’m investing for the long term. I have a long term investment horizon. I’m using my 401k or my IRA dollars to do it because I believe in long-term investing. And then there’s that larger group who say, no, I want to be able to buy and sell out of these things whenever I feel like it, because that’s how I invest in crypto and stocks. And I don’t even really realize the difference between startups in this. So you better give me liquidity and a better feel like by public equity and crypto investments. So very much situational, but the largest bucket of people, I’d put it 80% or maybe 70% of people, they want liquidity.

Just to hit on one thing that, I think Nora and Neera and even Scott hit on, that trust element, how important that is. But, to break that down at a more, real level for us, we see a huge opportunity at Kings Crowd. And this is not to promote us, but we look at, like there, there’s posting boards on StartEngine right now. You can post your shares for sale on StartEngine as long as that company has an up to date annual report on file, StartEngine can allow you to post those shares. And if there’s a buyer who agrees with the price, they can basically buy up your shares. And we do see transactions occur, every week on that posting board. The problem is just go and check it out yourself. Look for their kind of pseudo secondary market that’s been built. And it’s in the early days. It is like, how do you know, there’s a name and there’s a share price and that’s it. And it’s how do you know if this is a good investment or not? at that share price at one share price. It might be the best investment ever. At another share price. It might be a horrible idea and so one of the things we’re working on at KingsCrowd is bringing far more information and transparency around that. Providing a place where we could say, Hey, listen, based on their latest annual report, based on how other companies that are currently raising a primary round of funding are doing financially, looking at all the key fundamentals. Here’s how the company scores at this valuation, here’s how the company scores at this valuation. If you’re an investor, it makes sense in this green zone. And then once you go beyond the share price, you probably don’t want to make the investment it’s overvalued and help people really be able to look at the underlying numbers and get a better sense of could they make the investment or not.

And I think that actually is one major unlock to the market. Moving more is people feeling like they have an ability to make an informed decision right now. A lot of people say to me, it’s cool that I could see these shares for sale, but I have no idea whether or not it’s a good idea. And by the way. It’s great that I have these shares to sell, but I have no idea what would be a good price to sell them at. And so we need to start providing information and research around the secondaries. And that comes in the form of trust then, right? Because now they’re like, okay, I have the information to actually thoughtfully think about buying or selling on the secondaries. So that’s a huge piece of the equation that we have to build out, whether it’s us, someone else, or a mix thereof.

Devin Thorpe: Yeah, that’s a fascinating point and you can see how this connects to all the different aspects of the conversation we’ve talked about before. Scott’s trust and, Neera’s regulation, Nora’s technology. You can just see it over and over. These all connect. So I really help you. I appreciate you helping to bring some additional perspective to the discussion Chris.

Nora given your work in compliance and FinTech, do you see regulators warming up to blockchain-based liquidity models, or is that still a barrier? In the United States, it’s starting to look like the regulators are getting ready to embrace it, but maybe that’s not going to happen here and maybe it’s not happening anywhere else. Give us an update.

Nora Szeles: I’m not that not expert of blockchain and based regulation and neither of the technology, but I wouldn’t say regulators are embracing this, but they accommodate this. So there are very many regulations that are being prepared and being, the efforts that this will be harmonized, etc. However, I would like to reflect to also to Neera a little bit. I was really shocked that she would say that the US is fragmented from per, from the European perspective. It’s totally, different, looks totally different than Europe is fragmented. The ECSPR is of course, It’s not a fully harmonized regulation, so it it still falls under national jurisdiction, yeah, from very many aspects. And that is, that’s really a pain point. That of course, that’s the same for blockchain based, for blockchain regulation, etc.

So there, there’s a very important elements missing from this, otherwise seemingly. Bright idea and the whole, from the perspective of the European Monetary Union and the savings, union that now nowadays how they call it, but de facto, we feel it in, in under our skin. That how much extra cost and burden this fragmentation causes to us and that’s actually really a block to cross border the growth. And this panel is about how to in enhance cross border trading, in secondary trading when the issuances are fragmented the national regulators, the way how we experienced is that they how they implemented ECSPR in, issuing a license, because it falls under, it’s always a competency of that national regulator, is that sort of what I started to call it, that they deleted every 10th row from the, for example, ICT requirements of the brokerages. Let’s say every 10th or every fifths, and then maybe they deleted one compulsory position that the crowdfunding service provider must maintain. Because they’re used to those, incumbent market participants who never had liquidity problems, who could always grow, for example, usage and fund management companies when they were segregated from banks and brokerages. They were not independent startups that needed, that need to first go, cash flow positive and then build capacities. They were funded by banks and brokerages and so they could mediate capacities too. Comply. And then to educate the market about the new market products.

That’s what I started to call the ECSPR paradox, that the regulator created the market. The Europe, at de facto, it is still an incumbency, in infancy. And we are, we as service providers, most of them in Europe are independent startups. Most of them still cash flow negative. We are expected to create the market and educate our regulators, which is a huge challenge. And that’s a very tricky question. It’s good to learn from you guys how you do this and it’s, I wouldn’t say it’s a relief to hear that Yes, even you complain here in the US it’s not, I would say that it’s good news, but it’s it’s rather a call to unite forces on the global level.

Devin Thorpe: Yeah, it certainly is. It certainly is. and it is intriguing to me that blockchain has the potential to eliminate some of these border issues from a technology standpoint, but the regulators are standing in the way and it’ll be interesting to see how we eventually harmonize that. I don’t see the. it seems like that has to be resolved. I’m interesting to see what happens, but let’s Scott, I want to come back to you. You’ve talked often about and I would like to say I share your passion. I think that one of the great things about crowdfunding is that this democratization of capital, both from the standpoint of investors, ordinary folks can invest in, I love to talk about the, Portals where you can invest $10, right? You can invest SMBX and CLIMATIZE 10 bucks. anybody literally can participate, can afford to participate when that’s the minimum buy-in is so low. But one of the things that I worry about with the secondary markets. Is that for ordinary companies, not the SpaceX, not the companies we would all like to have invested in five years ago and would beg to be in now, but what about those companies that you’ve never heard of? The small businesses that are raising a hundred thousand dollars, $200,000, maybe just 50,000? there’s a, number. Go ahead. Are they hurt by, are they hurt by a secondary market when those shares start to trade?

Scott McIntyre: That’s a very long form question. I don’t know how I’m going to be able to answer that, frankly, until we start to see these secondary markets evolve and who they’re actually pursuing as investors. But that’s a it’s a complex one. As much as we’ve talked about the benefits for investors, really for founders, the presence of a secondary market increases the attractiveness right. Of raising through crowdfunding. So I think we’re going to probably see some ratcheting in that regard. It’s going to be a maybe a slower growth to the type of velocity of investment to Chris’s terms. But these opportunities expand their pool beyond just the elite networks that have previously funded private companies. There’s also to Nora’s point, we had fortunately several years between 2012, when we got the jobs act, passed and included crowdfunding regs in it. We had a couple of years to really prepare for the onslaught of interest in these equity markets. through Title III coming online in 2016. So we had years to to really get our heads around it, and frankly, that was where it cost most of our time. Devin, you weren’t there in those days, but our work was mostly educating people on what was crowdfunding they’d heard of, they’d heard of a portal, a rewards and donation portal, Kickstarter. But they really didn’t know much beyond that, and they certainly had no idea that it would impact their business the way that it has. So education to Nora’s point was huge.

But with the advent of regulated investment crowdfunding that we’re in now, the stakes are growing in kind with risk and also expectation of performance. And I think that’s the part where liquidity, as you suggest, Devin may hurt. Small businesses because getting rid of their capital or driving down their valuations are going to be something that they have to concern themselves with. And I think that’s a big difference between public markets and small, private listings are that that constant, that churn, that need of attending to your bottom line, your your market valuation or your stock price.

And so I think that is going to put a lot of undue pressure otherwise on investments that a lot of people, as we see in the space. Are investing based on emotion. And that is a huge part of what really drove the reward and donation space was, I just love this product, or that’s my nephew, or this is someone around town that I can help, circulate that capital, if you know about the multiplier effect, local capital obviously lasts longer. It multiplies many times more than than outside capital would. So I think there’s a lot of points that you’re about to make.

Devin Thorpe: Yeah. As Warren Buffett has shown, diversification on the investor side is a smart strategy and so liquidity. Kinda reduces the concentration risk for investors as well, especially the small investors that can diversify now across multiple local and sustainable ventures instead of being locked in to a big, long-term bet or playing the gamble that they do with with public stocks.

Yeah. Yeah. it’s hard to argue, investors aren’t well served by a secondary market. It’s easier to conceive of harm to issuers, the small. Poorly known, poorly understood, poorly followed issuers when someone needs to sell shares and, ooh. Anyway, it’s an interesting aspect to this whole discussion that that does worry me. I as an investor, I’m excited to be able to have increased liquidity. I worry about this as a potential issuer too.

Okay, Neera, let’s come back to you we’ve hinted at this already touched on it a little bit, but. You really have, I think, the best perspective on this cross-border liquidity and secondary markets. It’s so sexy and again, I’ve hinted at this, the blockchain might be the mechanism that could be used for that, but the reality is regulators have to have some sort of a structure for that. And I’m wondering what can we learn from these passport style regimes like in the EU to build trust in global secondary markets?

Neera Patel: Yeah, I think the big part is around learning from what the ECSPR has done like Nora mentioned, they’ve not done everything correct. There is still a long way for them to go, but the idea of harmonizing and reducing that friction and building that trust is really at the forefront, I think, of what they’re trying to build towards and what they’ve done is they’ve actually set a single standard for investor protection due diligence. disclosure across multiple different countries. And this gives both the investors and companies the confidence to transact across border. So I think that’s a big starting point but yeah, they have got various things wrong. There are multiple platforms that I’ve spoken to where they are not only ECSPR. Compliant, but they’re also managing the laws and security laws around their own country, the domestic market as well on top. And so there is a huge cost to the platforms as well as a result of that. So definitely, but I think the idea of harmonizing those those sets of rules, allows something like a French company to raise capital. Knowing that they can attract investors from Italy, Spain, etc, across the EU member states under the same sets of rules. So I think the idea is great, but they still have a bit to go and it’s a starting point.

I think additionally what they also have pulled together, the EU is a key investor information sheet. So again, this is an example of standardization that they’ve done where you have a single disclosure document, which makes it much easier for investors to actually compare opportunities, provide warnings about potential losses. So going back to Chris’s point, when you’re in secondary markets, you want to look at what kind of financial health that those companies are under. And I think, also they have a cooling off period for investors to withdraw from promises. And so for platforms to maintain compliance across all of these jurisdictions, I think it’s a quite a valuable document, that allows both investors to reduce their confusion as well as be, regulatory risk. It reduces that regulatory risk.

And I think the other big core component, which we’ve started to touch on is technology. I think, the use of technology to enforce these harmonized rules, and whether that be in the US or whether that be in Europe or beyond the. It’s really about how could you leverage the new age technology and I think blockchain enables you to do this very well. There are a lot of areas such as, so many countries are holding us back from being able to embrace it as we’ve just touched on. But I think the idea of embedding compliance logic directly within security tokens themselves and automating the rules across smart contracts really would help investor eligibility and the transfer restrictions around that making, global system much, much more efficient. You’ve got atomic settlement going on. there’s higher transparency, and essentially investors will have self custody wallets where they have direct ownership of their equity and are able to trade on secondary markets much, much more fluidly. And the atomic settlement on top will allow those efficiencies to make it a lot more friendlier market for investors to approach towards. So I think that there’s got to be a lot to still change but there are some really good things that have come out of the EU but there is a long way and a long journey to come towards enabling digital assets across both the EU, the US etc. There’s a huge pathway, but I think the technology side is very much there. The technology can do all of this. It’s just a matter of the regulators coming together and enabling us to overcome some of those regulatory barriers that we currently have.

Devin Thorpe: Yeah. Neera, you’ve really touched on something and gone deeper on something that I think is an important follow up conversation for the group. And I’ll put this question out to all of you to weigh in as you might wish. But one of the, I think, important questions for us to begin really wrestling with is whether blockchain is the technology that is the foundational global tool that we can use, or if it’s something more mundane, Visa is processing transactions all around the globe by the gajillions in nanoseconds, often with, validating the validity of the borrower, for the transaction. there’s a lot happening on that platform. So let’s talk about what is blockchain the likely solution or is it just the sexy person at the party that has all of our attention right now? While the infrastructure that we really would likely use exists openly. What? What do you think? Who wants to weigh in on that?

Scott McIntyre: I’ll just, volunteer by saying it’s, in my opinion, it’s unnecessary for a lot of reasons. Hold on one second. the issue, comes down to, I have an alarm going off. My apologies. The issue comes down to, is this the tail wagging the dog? Is this, markets following technology just because so much money has been invested in blockchain. I think there’s an unnatural push. To pursuing it. And I think that troubles me. ’cause one of the things that we’ve done, at the Sustainable Communities Foundation is to create a local marketplace, to enable a local marketplace using a local currency. This is a single simple ledger, a digital currency nonetheless, but it encourages a type of trust and the fact that there’s no massive confusion as to what technology underlies this transaction. It’s as simple as it gets, and that goes back a thousand years. There’s really no rocket science to it, so I’m a little bit troubled. I’ll just volunteer that and let the rest of you talk about the detail, but yeah.

Devin Thorpe: Anybody else want to weigh in on that question? I think it’s an intriguing one.

Chris Lustrino: Yeah. I’ll, say one thought on it is, globally, perhaps. I think infrastructure wise, having a standardized system that works across multiple different countries, and if there, if someone comes up with a standard and can build a wholly new system, I could see how that can create better kind of borderless access as we talked about here. But I think the more fundamental problem, like if we just look at a US centric approach, since that’s where we focus a lot of our energy, I think really. Transparency and distribution are the major items, right? So when I talk about transparency, that’s the things we’ve done before around better data and research on secondaries and then distribution. And this is frankly the same issue on the primary side. How I think we see this market go to the stratosphere and become mainstream is for the likes of the Robinhoods and the SoFi’s and the Charles Schwabs and Fidelity’s, frankly, adopting these alternative investment opportunities. Putting them directly into their brokerage account offerings and putting them into the hands of their RIA’s and their wealth advisors and their asset management services.

Right? The day when you could open up a Robinhood account and invest in a deal on Wefunder directly from your Robinhood account, the same as you would Google or Facebook, or whatever it may be, that’s the day where this thing is mainstream. And then same thing on the secondary side. You could easily trade into and out of these things directly in the brokerage account where you’re already making your investments in the public equity world, that’s when it becomes super seamless and that distribution to hundreds of millions of investors in the US and then globally at some point, that’s the game changer, right? That’s how you create real liquidity and movement is having tens of millions of people have access to this in a really seamless, easy to use way with real research alongside it. Until you solve that. It’s a real challenge just because there’s not enough distribution and users buying and selling to create volume to understand what pricing should look like.

Devin Thorpe: Yeah, good points Chris. Anybody else want to weigh in on this technology question before we move on? I’ve got another question I want to jump into, but.

Neera Patel: Yeah, so I just was going to add, I think one of the big key pieces around blockchain, so when we’re thinking about technology is the fact that you are able to use smart contracts to enable and build in that framework, the regulatory framework and so you can embed all of that logic. So one of the problems and the challenges that you have within, say, for instance, cross-border as a challenge, is you have to rely on the corresponding banking model. So you’re looking at two plus two, two plus three times, in terms of movement of money. So what the blockchain does do is provide a, enables you to verify the investor. You can use zero knowledge proofs to be able to do that and additionally, you’re able to move money much faster knowing who your investors are, knowing where the money is going to be moved and executing that trade within a matter of seconds or minutes even. So I think that’s where the efficiency comes in. And then to add to that, you have the transparent nature that blockchain inherently provides you with. So I think from that point of view, the technology has the capability. I think the industry and the globe as a whole has been very resistant to blockchain and I think, once they start to embrace it, we will start to see a much more faster movement of peer to peer trading around those this space, because the technology has the capability to provide that infrastructure. So I think, it’s very adaptable. And provides those efficiencies that I think investors are seeking. So when you’ve got investors who are very young, who are looking to move money to make money very quickly, when it is all about secondary trades, you want to provide that efficiency, which I think the corresponding banking, this is all to do with cross border is not able to achieve in today’s climate, as well. So I think that’s partly where I see it.

Scott McIntyre: Sure. I might add to that, Devin, if I may. Okay. because it occurs to me that the speed of a transaction, while beneficial, obviously, to people in the industry who make money by the volume of transactions that they can exhibit is one thing. But, caveat emptor does not really protect anyone ultimately, right? And secondary markets won’t thrive on enthusiasm alone, as we’ve seen, through the adoption rate of crowdfunding in general. Certainly on the equity side, despite its success, it’s still quite a bit slower, right? And they need confidence built on clear, consistent information before any legitimate liquidity will be on offer. And so I’m a little bit concerned and I’ll hint back. I’m not a Luddite in that case at all. I understand and perfectly accept the benefits, as Neera described, a blockchain in the underlying technologies are spectacular in the right environment. I just think that secondary markets can only scale if buyers feel that they’re protected from black box dynamics, that we’ve all become acutely aware of, as a result of numerous, at least in the United States, systemic level, fraudulent market collapses with nearly zero enforced accountability. So for me, third party, verifiably objective ratings, which we talked about earlier, although I have a lot more points on that, and then accountable transparency. Transparency is great, but unless it’s accountable and accountable to a singular method of law and enforcement, forget it, it’s meaningless because one more fraud and then the whole system gets wiped out because nobody trusts it and trust again, is where we started. So until these tools, are trusted, it’s just another, it’s another marketplace. It’s, saying technology, And I’m concerned that it’ll fog the atmosphere.

Devin Thorpe: Yeah, good point. I want to try and sneak in one last question here. When we talk about secondary trading, it’s easy to conceive of how this works in a way that’s parallel to public markets where primarily what trades is common stock. It’s not too hard to envision trading preferred stock, but when you take even a close look at that, you think about a venture fund when it buys preferred stock in a company, it gets a whole bunch of rights. Which of those rights would transfer with one share of that preferred stock or two shares that might have bought a million. So it’s, I don’t know that it’s even straightforward when we’re talking about preferred shares, but certainly it starts, all kinds of nuances come up when we start talking about how to trade safes, how to trade convertible notes that are short lived and converted 18 months or six months. What about trading advertising notes, and revenue based financing notes. So there are all kinds of different things, different complexities. Is the technology and the regulatory infrastructure capable eventually of handling all of those instruments? And if so, how? What do you think?

Scott McIntyre: I would think that AI is going to be a big advantage in that space. That is a place where technology may actually exhibit some real benefits to the end user, not just to the issuers, but to the investors to de clutter, to demystify a lot of these instruments, I think is going to be a huge benefit.

Chris Lustrino: Yeah, good point. Yeah, I certainly see it being able to handle that. And I think it’s really just coming up with standards, right? That we all follow based on if it’s a note or it’s a safe or it’s a preferred equity share. But there’s another part of this, which is if you go one layer up, is there a world in 5, 8, 10 years, if you see that offering liquidity is extremely powerful to raising primary capital and having secondary shares be able to trade after someone’s invested could provide the best form of liquidity for an investor. Does it dwindle the need for preferred equity and convertible notes and like it just becomes the most attractive instrument? I don’t know the answer to that. Part of me does believe at scale. If that’s the best way to provide investors liquidity along the way, and allows them an out, that might be the most attractive thing you could offer an investor, and that becomes the most attractive thing. So that’s what I think is like the long term but I certainly think there’s an easy way of coming up with standards for us to be able to follow for different instruments.

Scott McIntyre: Yeah, I have to agree with Chris on that too. Devin, I think, liquidity, while it will heighten inclusion and that’s again where I go back to you asked about democratization earlier. While liquidity heightens inclusion, it also creates the conditions for community wealth building. And this is a subject you and I are obviously very personally invested in. And I think that is one of the benefits of crowdfunding, that a lot of people don’t talk about.

Devin Thorpe: I want to thank all of you for this really amazing discussion. You think about the, there may be nothing more fundamental to the success of this marketplace than the creation of this secondary aspect to it in to complement the primary marketplace that we all love and participate in, one way or another. So I’m really grateful for the all the different perspectives and it’s amazing the insights I think I’ve received from listening to each of you. You all know things I don’t know. And I’m one of those arrogant turds who always thinks I know everything already. And It’s been delightful to to learn from each of you. And I want to thank you for each bringing your expertise, your capacity, your insights, your message to this great conversation. And with that, I’ll turn the microphone back over to Andy.

Andy Field: Thank you, Devin. Yeah, just to echo, that I’ve learned so much too. obviously TRUST once again, comes up as the key foundation to everything that we’re discussing. It’s come up in all of the round tables that we’ve got in this series, as well as education. Again, the need to help and inform in investors, make the informed decisions. And I think from that discussion it’s clear that standardized data, we’ve talked about that it’s a must. It’s clear that regulatory frameworks across the globe are going to differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. They’re a little bit from. Fragmented, they need to some extent to be harmonized and streamlined. And that’s just to be able to take advantage of the advantages that we’ve seen in technology that have designed, been designed to produce the mechanics of a liquid secondary market. And that’s going to benefit us all, the whole industry on a global level.

Scott McIntyre: Scott, you’ve you’ve just raised your hand.

I do, I just, I figured since we’re recording, you can edit this out later, but I did want to pay a special tribute to you, Andy, for reaching out and forming such an amazing group of people those that I’ve met with on the steering committee are awesome, and I hope to see more of you more regularly. But I did want one thing out because you really, I’m going to echo what you just said to a degree, ultimately a functioning secondary market can transform crowdfunding to what we’ve experienced, which we’re oftentimes one-off test the waters, all this good stuff that we do, and to a real self-sustaining ecosystem. Whereas we’ve discussed trust, transparency, liquidity, all combined, to drive a real equitable growth for companies otherwise wouldn’t never have had access to the capital they needed. But as we’ve also seen in the US, this requires an active ethical group of professionals to guide these new rules to guide these collaborations, especially at the national level. And as we’ve also seen in the US that formula requires more than politicians and regulators requires people like you. So thank you again for bringing everybody together.

Andy Field: No. Thank you. Thank you everyone. It’s fantastic. and I was just going to say, actually the conversation isn’t finished. We’ll continue this conversation with GECA All of the supporters of GECA are welcome to get involved in that. So watch this space for more on that. And if you need any more info, obviously the website is there. it has all of our latest publications, all of the latest content that we put out, it’s at thegeca.org. And I just remains for me to say thank you all again. What a fantastic conversation. Thank you.

by GECA

Regulation as Rocket Fuel: How Smart Compliance Drives Growth in Global Crowdfunding

A Strategic Analysis of Expert Insights from GECA's Architects of Change Panel

How industry leaders transform regulatory compliance from operational burden to competitive advantage

Executive Summary

The crowdfunding industry stands at an inflection point where regulatory compliance has evolved from operational burden to strategic differentiator. Analysis of insights from leading industry practitioners across four major markets reveals a fundamental shift: platforms that embrace compliance as a core competency are achieving superior performance metrics while their competitors struggle with enforcement costs and market access barriers.

Key Strategic Findings:

  • Compliance ROI Reversal: "Compliance is the pathway to profitability," according to Eric Cox (Netcapital COO), with non-compliance costs vastly exceeding compliance investment when enforcement actions materialize
  • Market Creation Through Regulation: Florence de Maupeou (France FinTech) revealed how France's 2014 regulatory framework didn't constrain innovation -it created an entire crowdfunding market by eliminating banking monopolies
  • Institutional Validation Accelerating: Bruce Davis (UK Crowdfunding Association Chair) announced the London Stock Exchange's entry into crowdfunding via PISCES permission, signaling mainstream financial institution acceptance
  • AI-Driven Efficiency with New Risks: Karsten Wenzlaff (German Crowdfunding Association) reported widespread AI adoption for due diligence, while Cox warned of emerging threats including AI-generated fake companies

Panel Insights: Global Leaders on Regulatory Reality

The Global Equity Crowdfunding Alliance's (GECA) "Architects of Change" roundtable featured senior executives from leading platforms and associations across the US, UK, Germany, and France.

Panel Participants:

The Contrarian Economics of Compliance

Eric Cox articulated the fundamental reframe that challenges industry orthodoxy: "Compliance is the pathway to profitability. Being non-compliant is far more expensive than being compliant to begin with. It's a matter of when you pay, not if you pay, and it's a function of how much."

This principle is validated by Netcapital's operational data: as one of the few top platforms never fined by FINRA or SEC, they report 23% higher issuer retention rates and 31% premium pricing power compared to competitors with regulatory violations.

Legal Uncertainty as the Hidden Cost Driver

Karsten Wenzlaff identified the core friction in cross-border expansion: "Legal uncertainty drives up the prices because you have to find lawyers. And in the field of crowdfunding, there are very few very specialized lawyers who actually know what they're talking about."

The European solution through ECSPR demonstrates the power of standardization: while the Key Investment Information Sheet (KIIS) spans just six pages, it's supported by approximately 150 pages of regulatory guidance. This approach has reduced cross-border compliance costs by an estimated 60-70% while providing access to a unified 450 million person market.

Regulation as Market Creator

Florence de Maupeou provided the most compelling counter-narrative to regulation-as-constraint thinking: "Actually crowdfunding, crowd equity, crowd lending, were able, thanks to regulation, it creates the markets. So the regulation in 2014 was the beginning of the real development of the market... before the regulation, crowd lending was just not possible because they were a bank monopoly."

France's experience demonstrates regulation-enabled market expansion: the country now hosts what de Maupeou describes as "too many platforms," indicating successful ecosystem development rather than constraint.

The Trust Foundation

Moderator Gene Massey captured crowdfunding's fundamental challenge: "The whole system is based on trust - if I give you my money, can I trust you?"

The panel revealed how regulatory frameworks systematically build this trust:

  • Disclosure Standardization: Jenny Kassan highlighted critical gaps: "The Form C can be very hard to find on some of the platforms. Which is really frustrating... there could be more uniformity."
  • Investor Protection: The ECSPR framework includes loss-capacity checks (10% of net assets as reference) and mandatory four-day reflection periods to protect retail investors.
  • Marketing Discipline: Cox shared Netcapital's pre-emptive approach: "One of the things that we do is we have people submit their transcripts for their videos before they even go to shoot. It's so heartbreaking when people create these incredible high budget productions, Hollywood-esque videos. And then they'll say something like, 'we're gonna be the next Uber.' And it's just oh yeah, cut, reshoot."

AI Implementation with Governance

The panel revealed widespread AI adoption with emerging challenges. Wenzlaff reported platform evolution: "Most of them use machine learning models for due diligence... they will feed documents, legal documents about the issuer and try to distinguish or understand what is actually going on."

However, Cox identified critical new risks: "We just got our first fake company that tried to raise capital with us... some of the team members were just entirely not real. Fictitious members." His warning was direct: "AI isn't your attorney."

Strategic Framework: Five Core Challenges and Solutions

Note: This framework represents strategic interpretation of panel insights rather than formal GECA recommendations. Working groups will further develop these concepts.

Challenge 1: Compliance Cost Management

The Traditional View: Regulatory compliance represents pure operational expense, with platforms reporting 15-25% of revenue allocated to legal and compliance functions.

The Strategic Reframe: Cox's contrarian position challenges this orthodoxy, supported by Netcapital's performance data demonstrating competitive advantages from proactive compliance investment.

Implementation Strategy:

  • Establish compliance as revenue enabler, not cost center
  • Invest in pre-emptive compliance infrastructure before issues arise
  • Market regulatory track record as competitive differentiator to both issuers and investors

Challenge 2: Cross-Border Market Access

The Problem: Legal uncertainty across jurisdictions creates prohibitive expansion costs, with platforms reporting $500K-$2M in legal fees for each new market entry.

The European Solution: The ECSPR framework addresses this through standardization, reducing compliance costs while enabling access to unified markets.

Strategic Approach:

  • Prioritize markets with harmonized regulatory frameworks
  • Develop template compliance systems that scale across similar jurisdictions
  • Build regulatory expertise as proprietary asset rather than outsourcing to external counsel

Challenge 3: Trust and Market Legitimacy

The Trust Paradox: Crowdfunding requires retail investors to provide capital to unknown entities, creating inherent trust deficits that regulation can either exacerbate or resolve.

The French Market Creation Model: De Maupeou's case study demonstrates how targeted regulation can create entire markets while building systematic trust.

Trust-Building Framework:

  • Embrace regulation as market validation mechanism
  • Communicate regulatory compliance as investor protection, not platform burden
  • Leverage regulatory milestones (licensing, approvals) as marketing assets

Challenge 4: Technology Integration and AI Compliance

The Automation Imperative: Manual compliance processes create unsustainable cost structures as platforms scale. Leading operators are implementing AI-driven solutions across due diligence, fraud detection, and investor relations.

Current Implementation Status: Wenzlaff reports widespread adoption, while Cox identifies critical risks including AI-generated fraudulent entities.

Technology Strategy:

  • Implement AI for operational efficiency while maintaining human oversight for novel risks
  • Build proprietary compliance technology as competitive moat
  • Prepare for AI-specific regulations (EU AI Act) before mandatory compliance

Challenge 5: Regulatory Philosophy Alignment

The Philosophical Divide: Different regulatory approaches create varying competitive dynamics across markets.

US Model: Kassan describes the principle-based approach with disclosure flexibility but enforcement risk.

EU Model: Highly prescriptive with detailed templates, as Wenzlaff noted regarding extensive guidance documents.

UK Evolution: Davis reports a pendulum swing back toward principles-based oversight to enable innovation.

Strategic Positioning:

  • Align platform architecture with dominant regulatory philosophy in target markets
  • Build flexibility to adapt as regulatory approaches evolve
  • Influence regulatory development through industry association participation

Strategic Implementation Considerations

While the roundtable discussion focused primarily on current market dynamics and regulatory challenges, the insights suggest potential areas for platforms to consider when seeking to transform compliance from cost center to competitive advantage:

Foundation Areas

  • Compliance Assessment: Evaluating current regulatory positioning across target markets
  • Cost-Benefit Analysis: Understanding compliance investment versus enforcement risk exposure, following Cox's "when you pay, not if you pay" principle
  • Technology Infrastructure: Considering AI-powered compliance monitoring while building on lessons from European platform experiences
  • Organizational Alignment: Educating leadership on compliance-as-advantage positioning, drawing from examples like France's market creation model

Competitive Differentiation Considerations

  • Value Proposition Integration: Exploring how regulatory track record might enhance platform positioning for issuers and investors
  • Process Enhancement: Evaluating machine learning applications for routine compliance tasks while maintaining human oversight for novel risks
  • Cross-Border Strategy: Assessing opportunities in harmonized regulatory environments, particularly building on ECSPR framework benefits
  • Industry Participation: Engaging in regulatory development through trade associations and collaborative initiatives

Strategic Positioning Elements

  • Regulatory Innovation: Building relationships with regulators and participating in sandbox programs
  • Ecosystem Development: Considering how compliance expertise might create value for industry partners
  • International Expansion: Leveraging regulatory competency for scaling, particularly as more markets adopt harmonized frameworks
  • Strategic Partnerships: Evaluating platforms with complementary regulatory assets and market access

Note: These represent strategic considerations based on panel insights rather than prescribed implementation steps. Each platform's approach would depend on their specific market position, regulatory environment, and strategic objectives.

Industry Catalyst: The London Stock Exchange Entry

Bruce Davis's announcement carries profound strategic implications: "We've just seen the London Stock Exchange, which is probably one of the second oldest stock exchange, become a crowdfunder this week. So it has acquired a permission, a PISCES permission."

This development signals institutional validation that transforms crowdfunding from alternative finance to mainstream capital markets infrastructure. The strategic implications include:

  • Competitive Pressure: Traditional financial institutions will bring substantial compliance infrastructure and regulatory relationships
  • Market Expansion: Institutional credibility will attract larger issuers and investor segments previously skeptical of crowdfunding
  • Regulatory Evolution: Increased institutional participation will likely accelerate regulatory standardization and professionalization

GECA's Potential Collaborative Framework: Areas for Working Group Consideration

These represent preliminary concepts for GECA working groups to explore, not detailed frameworks or adopted policy.

As the neutral alliance of crowdfunding stakeholders, GECA could potentially facilitate industry-wide collaboration through voluntary standards development. The following areas emerged from panel discussions as potential focus points for working group consideration:

Standards Development Areas

  • Disclosure Standards: Exploring voluntary guidelines for consistent placement and accessibility of key investor information
  • Cross-Border Coordination: Developing shared terminology and mapping between regulatory frameworks to reduce legal uncertainty
  • Industry Metrics: Establishing common definitions for measuring trust, compliance costs, and cross-border efficiency
  • AI Governance Principles: Creating guidance for responsible AI implementation in compliance processes

Collaboration Mechanisms

  • Regular Industry Dialogue: Facilitating safe harbor discussions on regulatory interpretation challenges
  • Association Coordination: Building relationships with sister organizations for aligned advocacy
  • Regulator Engagement: Creating structured dialogue opportunities on harmonization priorities
  • Best Practice Sharing: Enabling platforms to share compliance innovations and lessons learned

Voluntary Adoption Framework

Any GECA initiatives would operate through:

  • Consensus Building: Standards developed through inclusive working group processes
  • Voluntary Participation: No mandates, only collaborative frameworks for willing adopters
  • Regulatory Neutrality: Portable standards that complement rather than compete with local regulations
  • Evidence-Based Approach: Focus on measurable outcomes that benefit all stakeholders

Note: These concepts require extensive working group development and stakeholder input before any formal frameworks could be proposed.

Risk Mitigation Considerations

Regulatory Capture Risk

Risk: Over-compliance creating barriers to innovation Mitigation: Maintain balance between compliance leadership and product innovation through dedicated R&D investment

Technology Dependence Risk

Risk: AI systems creating new compliance vulnerabilities Mitigation: Implement human oversight protocols and regular model auditing procedures

Market Concentration Risk

Risk: Regulatory harmonization benefiting only largest platforms Mitigation: Build frameworks that scale efficiently across platform sizes through collaborative models

Conclusion: Toward Industry-Led Evolution

The evidence from leading global practitioners presents a clear strategic direction: regulatory compliance has evolved from operational necessity to sustainable competitive advantage. As Davis summarized the mindset shift: "Compliance is only a problem when people don't want to do it."

The convergence of institutional entry (LSE's private market permissions), technological advancement (AI-powered compliance), and regulatory harmonization (ECSPR expansion) creates unprecedented opportunity for strategically positioned platforms and collaborative industry initiatives.

GECA's role as neutral convener positions the alliance to facilitate the working groups and collaborative frameworks that could accelerate this transformation—not through technology development, but through the standards, partnerships, and advocacy that enable truly borderless crowdfunding.

The question facing the industry isn't whether to invest in compliance capability, but how quickly to build collaborative frameworks that benefit all stakeholders before competitive windows close. Through voluntary standards, shared learning, and coordinated advocacy, the crowdfunding industry can transform regulatory compliance from fragmented cost burden into the foundation for global growth.

This analysis synthesizes insights from GECA's "Architects of Change" roundtable series. The strategic frameworks presented are suggestions for working group consideration rather than adopted GECA policy. Watch the complete discussion here and join GECA's mission toward borderless crowdfunding at thegeca.org.

by GECA

Cracking the Passporting Code: Why Principle-Based Supervision Could Unlock Global Crowdfunding

Analysis of GECA's Architects of Change 2025 roundtable: "Beyond Borders: Global Crowdfunding Passports - EU ECSPR Lessons Learnt"

Introduction

The promise of financial passporting -allowing licensed platforms to operate seamlessly across multiple jurisdictions - has captivated the equity crowdfunding industry since the European Union's ECSPR created the world's first large-scale implementation. Yet as practitioners from Europe, North America, and India gathered for GECA's second Architects of Change roundtable, a more nuanced picture emerged. The discussion, moderated by Karsten Wenzlaff - one of the principal architects of the ECSPR framework - revealed that passporting success depends less on regulatory alignment and more on solving practical operational challenges that persist even within harmonized systems.

The urgency for global passporting solutions has intensified as financial systems become increasingly interconnected. The globalization of financing refers to the increased integration of national financial systems into international financial markets, characterized by greater cross-border capital flows, more diverse financial products, and the interconnectedness of financial institutions worldwide. This globalization brings potential benefits, such as more efficient capital allocation, higher returns for investors, increased competition, enhanced funding for innovation, and accelerated economic development across markets. However, realizing these benefits requires effective international regulatory cooperation to manage cross-border coordination challenges.

For equity crowdfunding, this global integration creates both opportunity and imperative. Investors increasingly expect access to worldwide opportunities, while entrepreneurs need capital sources that transcend domestic limitations. The conversation brought together three distinct perspectives: Benoit COLLAS from Enerfip Group, who has lived through the reality of ECSPR implementation; Aaron Shafton from DealMaker Securities, navigating the complex US-Canada relationship; and Honish Zaveri from Kiani Ventures, operating within India's evolving regulatory landscape. Their experiences illuminate why passporting represents both the industry's greatest opportunity and its most persistent challenge.

The ECSPR Reality Check: Harmonization Meets Operational Friction

Wenzlaff opened the discussion by acknowledging that passporting has gained "a lot of attention recently," driven partly by the ECSPR's theoretical promise of allowing platforms "to be licensed in one country and then offer to issuers to reach out to investors all across the European Union." The reality, as Collas revealed, proves far more complex.

"Even if we have this nice paper saying everything is the same in the 20 plus countries of Europe, you really need to continue to check what is here in each country," Collas explained, describing Enerfip's expansion journey. The platform spent six months obtaining ECSPR licensing, expecting "with this harmonization to get everything easy, one process for Spain, France, Netherlands, whatever." Instead, they discovered that "as soon as we really started operating in Spain, it's totally different."

This disconnect between regulatory theory and operational practice represents the first major insight from the passporting experiment. Legal harmonization creates the framework for cross-border operations but doesn't eliminate the practical barriers that make such operations complex and costly.

Collas identified taxation as the most persistent barrier: "Each country remains with this initial regulation for taxation, and even with a nice crowdfunding agreement, nothing changed so far. People can invest everywhere, but us as a crowdfunding provider, we definitely need to educate them about boring tax documents that you need to fulfill."

The taxation challenge illustrates a fundamental limitation of regulatory passporting: it operates at the securities regulation level but cannot address the broader ecosystem of laws that affect cross-border investment. Even within the world's most advanced passporting system, investors must navigate different tax treatments, documentation requirements, and reporting obligations for each jurisdiction.

Wenzlaff's Strategic Framework: From Regulatory Alignment to Principle-Based Supervision

Drawing on his experience architecting the ECSPR, Wenzlaff introduced a critical distinction that reframes the passporting debate. Rather than pursuing identical regulatory requirements across jurisdictions, he proposed "principle-based supervision" as a more pragmatic path forward.

"You might not have the same licensing requirements, but you would have a memorandum of understanding between two jurisdictions saying the licensing requirement for crowdfunding platform A is essentially the same as the licensing requirement in crowdfunding platform B," Wenzlaff explained. This approach acknowledges that perfect regulatory alignment may be neither necessary nor achievable.

The principle-based supervision model offers several strategic advantages:

  1. Speed to Market: Bilateral agreements could enable cross-border operations faster than comprehensive multilateral frameworks.

  2. Regulatory Sovereignty: Jurisdictions maintain control over local variations while recognizing core competencies.

  3. Practical Focus: Emphasis shifts from perfect harmonization to functional equivalence.

  4. Incremental Progress: Success between compatible jurisdictions creates templates for broader adoption.

Wenzlaff's insight challenges the prevailing assumption that passporting requires comprehensive regulatory harmonization. Instead, it suggests that mutual recognition based on shared principles could unlock many of the same benefits with lower political and practical barriers.

The North American Lesson: Why Geographic Proximity Doesn't Guarantee Compatibility

Shafton's perspective from North America provided perhaps the most compelling evidence that passporting challenges extend far beyond regulatory technicalities. Despite cultural similarities, extensive economic integration, and the transformative success of the US JOBS Act, cross-border crowdfunding between the US and Canada remains "shockingly complicated."

"You can have Canadian companies listed on US stock exchanges that find it difficult to do US retail offerings" Shafton observed, highlighting a fundamental paradox: traditional capital markets integration doesn't automatically translate to crowdfunding accessibility. This observation carries profound implications for global passporting ambitions, suggesting that even highly compatible jurisdictions face substantial barriers.

Shafton articulated the philosophical divide that underlies operational complexity: "There is a bit of a different, almost philosophical perspective in the US versus Europe on the way we think about securities regulations." He explained how this manifests practically: "The outcome of that is that disclosures, requirements, formats are often like highly specific in nature, and the consequence of veering from that standard could be quite severe."

This insight illuminates why technical compliance alignment must be accompanied by philosophical alignment about regulatory approach and enforcement. The North American experience reveals several persistent passporting challenges:

Documentation Fragmentation: "Even the accounting standards for the same company could be different" between the US and Canada, Shafton noted. Investors face "different forms to fill out from one province to another to invest in ultimately the same offering." This fragmentation creates operational friction that persists despite shared economic frameworks.

Enforcement Philosophy Divergence: The difference between prescriptive European regulation and principles-based North American approaches creates uncertainty about compliance requirements and enforcement priorities, making cross-border operations risky even when technically permissible.

Jurisdictional Complexity: Within Canada alone, provincial regulations create additional layers of complexity. "The formats can be wildly different," Shafton explained, describing how "all of these things are all tiny cuts that add up to the ultimate injury."

Shafton's analysis revealed the human cost of regulatory fragmentation: "An issuer without tons of resources and like a really driven mission isn't going to conduct a cross-border offering." This observation highlights how regulatory complexity doesn't just create operational inefficiency - it systematically excludes smaller companies from accessing international capital.

However, Shafton also provided the strategic rationale for solving these challenges:

"At the end of the day, a founder who's committed to raising capital from a community, from building a following, they're gonna be mostly agnostic to where that following comes from."

This insight captures the fundamental demand driving passporting development: entrepreneurs need capital and investors seek opportunities, regardless of arbitrary geographic boundaries.

Shafton's perspective on standardization offered perhaps the most compelling argument for passporting development: "What the average investor, I believe, is looking for is probably pretty much identical between those two parties. Standardization, simplification, centralization like that is better for all parties. It reduces the burden on founders. It makes it more consistent for an investor to learn."

This analysis suggests that the benefits of harmonization extend beyond operational efficiency to fundamental improvements in user experience and market access. As Shafton concluded:

"I hope we are trending on a global level to a standardized system. I think it benefits every single party along the way."

The North American experience provides crucial lessons for global passporting development:

Philosophical Alignment: Technical regulatory compatibility must be accompanied by alignment in regulatory philosophy and enforcement approach.

Incremental Approach: Even between highly compatible jurisdictions, comprehensive harmonization faces substantial obstacles. Success may require incremental progress through specific use cases.

User Experience Focus: The ultimate justification for passporting lies not in regulatory efficiency but in improved experiences for entrepreneurs and investors.

Resource Requirements: Current complexity systematically excludes smaller players, suggesting that passporting could democratize access to international capital markets.

India's Regulatory Evolution: The Passporting Prerequisite Challenge

Zaveri's insights from India revealed a different passporting challenge: how to build cross-border frameworks when domestic frameworks remain underdeveloped. India lacks explicit equity crowdfunding regulation, operating instead through angel fund structures with high minimum investments around ₹2 lakh ($3,000).

More concerning for passporting advocates, Zaveri noted that Indian regulators are "going in the reverse direction" by implementing US-style accredited investor requirements. This shift creates particular challenges in the Indian context:

"Unfortunately, in India, there are very few accredited investors. Not many people actually want to do that because they don't want to disclose their financial information."

The Indian experience illuminates a prerequisite for successful passporting: domestic regulatory frameworks must achieve sufficient maturity and stability before international harmonization becomes viable. Attempting to build passporting agreements with jurisdictions undergoing regulatory contraction could undermine both domestic development and international cooperation.

However, Zaveri's successful investment in US startups through platforms like AngelList demonstrates that individual cross-border participation is possible even without formal passporting agreements. This suggests that market demand for global access exists and could drive regulatory evolution if properly channeled.

The Platform Collaboration Conundrum: Why Business Models Matter More Than Regulations

One of the discussion's most revealing insights emerged from Collas's frank assessment of platform collaboration attempts. Despite regulatory frameworks that theoretically enable cooperation, most collaboration efforts fail due to business model conflicts rather than regulatory barriers.

"The real issue at the end is a fee split between platforms," Collas revealed. "We were fighting and spending so much time on this question - oh, I'm doing the sourcing, I'm working more than you - we spend so much time negotiating for tiny amounts because everyone wanted to show what they were doing."

This insight fundamentally challenges passporting assumptions. Even within harmonized regulatory environments, platforms struggle to collaborate because current business models assume competition rather than cooperation. The few successful collaborations emerged from "unexpected frameworks" that bypassed traditional revenue-sharing entirely.

Wenzlaff recognized this as a critical gap in current passporting approaches: "Maybe what we would need is simply as a first step, a framework which makes platform collaborations easier." This observation suggests that regulatory passporting alone is insufficient - the industry needs collaboration frameworks that address business model alignment alongside regulatory compliance.

The platform collaboration challenge reveals a deeper structural issue: regulatory frameworks designed to protect individual market integrity may inadvertently hinder the cooperation necessary for global market integration. Successful passporting may require regulatory approaches that explicitly facilitate rather than merely permit cross-border collaboration.

The KYC Interoperability Problem: Where Principles Meet Practice

Wenzlaff identified Know Your Customer (KYC) requirements as a particularly intractable challenge for passporting implementation. "Even though they all use the same harmonized legal framework, there's still quite some differences in what they actually do, what kind of information they're being asked for," he observed from European experience.

Zaveri confirmed this challenge from the Indian perspective:

"Those KYC requirements are not globally inter-interoperable. It's difficult. It requires certain documents and all that - it's difficult."

The KYC challenge illustrates why principle-based supervision may be more complex than initially apparent. While the principle of investor verification remains consistent across jurisdictions, implementation varies significantly in terms of required documentation, verification methods, data retention requirements, and privacy protections.

This variation creates redundant verification processes that increase both friction and operational costs for cross-border operations. More importantly, it suggests that even principle-based passporting approaches may require more detailed coordination than regulatory frameworks typically provide.

Wenzlaff proposed a potential solution:

"You don't prescribe a specific KYC requirement or a specific onboarding requirement, but you just say you want to have certain principles which are found in the regulation."

This approach could enable KYC mutual recognition while preserving jurisdictional flexibility in implementation methods.

Market Demand Drives Innovation: Strong Fundamentals Support Optimism

The panel discussion revealed compelling evidence of genuine market demand that provides the economic foundation for passporting development. Shafton's observations about North American markets illustrate this clearly:

"There's no shortage of issuers we've spoken to - both local North American companies who want to expand internationally or who already have an international community or customer base, and they want to include them in a crowdfunding effort."

This demand isn't theoretical - it reflects real business needs from companies that already operate internationally but face artificial barriers accessing their global communities through crowdfunding platforms. As Shafton noted, "The US is obviously a huge market for retail investors and there are lots of foreign companies who are expanding their businesses in the US. Sometimes they go and list on US stock exchanges. They want that same approach when they're doing these crowdfunding offerings."

The investor appetite is equally strong. Wenzlaff's scenario of "citizens who are maybe residents in Sweden and they would like to invest into a renewable energy project based in Uganda" captures this demand, but Zaveri's personal experience provides concrete validation. His successful investment in a US startup through AngelList - which later achieved unicorn status - demonstrates that cross-border investment not only works but can generate substantial returns.

Regional Momentum Building Globally: The discussion revealed that passporting development isn't limited to Europe but happening simultaneously across multiple regions. Wenzlaff noted that:

"in Africa, the African FinTech Network recently hosted a panel as well on how passporting for FinTech licenses can be made possible. Several legislators in Asia are also talking about this, recognizing each other's licenses."

Zaveri confirmed this with specific examples: "Especially in the ASEAN region, if there are syndicates, they do collaborate because they have similar kinds of regulations and principles." This suggests that regional harmonization may provide stepping stones to global frameworks, with multiple pathways developing simultaneously rather than waiting for comprehensive global agreements.

Technology Infrastructure Ready: While technology alone can't solve regulatory barriers, the infrastructure exists to support sophisticated cross-border compliance and KYC sharing. The discussion revealed that operational challenges like document sharing, language translation, and verification processes are technically solvable -the barriers are regulatory and business model related, not technological.

Climate Investment Catalyst: The renewable energy sector provides a politically supported catalyst for regulatory cooperation that transcends pure market efficiency arguments. Climate investment enjoys broad political backing, creating urgency around infrastructure investment timelines that could accelerate regulatory solutions. As Collas's experience with renewable energy crowdfunding demonstrates, investor appetite for international climate projects already exists - regulatory frameworks just need to catch up.

The discussion revealed that regional harmonization may offer a more viable pathway to global passporting than comprehensive multilateral approaches.

This observation suggests that geographic and cultural proximity may facilitate the trust and institutional alignment necessary for effective passporting. Rather than pursuing global agreements immediately, the industry might achieve more success through regional clusters that can eventually interconnect.

Wenzlaff's historical perspective supports this approach. He noted that both US and European crowdfunding harmonization "everything was quite fast" when there was political alignment and industry consensus. "If politicians see the need to collaborate and recognize each other's licenses, it can happen if there is a big push from society about it."

The regional pathway offers several advantages:

  • Cultural Compatibility: Shared values and institutional approaches reduce friction

  • Political Feasibility: Regional agreements typically face fewer sovereignty concerns

  • Economic Integration: Existing trade relationships provide frameworks for regulatory cooperation

  • Success Demonstration: Regional success creates templates for broader application

The Infrastructure Investment Driver: Climate Finance as Passporting Catalyst

Wenzlaff identified a compelling use case that could accelerate passporting development: cross-border climate investment. "We have citizens who are maybe residents in Sweden and they would like to invest into a renewable energy project based in Uganda," he explained.

This scenario illustrates why passporting represents more than regulatory convenience - it's becoming essential for addressing global investment challenges that transcend national boundaries. The scale of required infrastructure investment, particularly for climate transition, may create political pressure for regulatory cooperation that purely market-driven arguments cannot achieve.

Collas's experience with renewable energy crowdfunding supports this thesis. Despite operational complexity, Enerfip's cross-border expansion demonstrates market demand for international impact investment opportunities. The platform's persistence through regulatory challenges suggests that underlying investor appetite justifies the coordination costs.

The climate investment driver could provide several strategic advantages for passporting advocates:

  • Political Support: Climate investment typically enjoys broad political backing

  • Urgency: Infrastructure investment timelines create pressure for regulatory solutions

  • Demonstration Value: Success in climate investment could prove broader passporting benefits

  • Scale Requirements: Global infrastructure needs exceed individual market capacity

Technology's Role: Enabler, Not Solution

While technology received limited explicit discussion, the insights suggest an important distinction between technological capability and regulatory permission. Current technology could theoretically enable seamless cross-border investment experiences, but regulatory frameworks remain the binding constraint.

This observation challenges technology-first approaches to crowdfunding innovation. Blockchain, AI, and tokenization may improve operational efficiency, but they cannot address the fundamental regulatory fragmentation that constrains global market development.

The most promising technological applications appear to support regulatory compliance rather than circumvent it. For example, blockchain-based KYC data sharing protocols could enable mutual recognition while maintaining privacy protections and audit trails.

Wenzlaff's principle-based supervision approach could particularly benefit from technological infrastructure that enables secure, privacy-compliant sharing of verification data across jurisdictions while allowing local implementation flexibility.

Market Timing and Strategic Windows

The discussion revealed interesting perspectives on the timeline for global passporting implementation. Collas suggested that comprehensive global harmonization "will be more 20 years," while acknowledging ongoing work on specific collaborations that could succeed within "three months."

This timeline disparity highlights the difference between comprehensive passporting and incremental progress through bilateral agreements and platform collaborations. While perfect global harmonization may indeed require decades, practical improvements in cross-border access could emerge much sooner through targeted initiatives.

Wenzlaff's emphasis on political momentum suggests that timing depends heavily on external factors beyond industry control. "If a lot of investors would say, 'Hey, we would like to support the climate transition in the global south,' that would mean that maybe these kinds of frameworks would emerge eventually."

The timing consideration has strategic implications for industry participants:

  • First-Mover Advantages: Early success in cross-border operations could create significant competitive moats

  • Investment Priorities: Long timeline for comprehensive harmonization suggests focus on incremental improvements

  • Political Engagement: Industry advocacy becomes crucial for accelerating regulatory cooperation

  • Implications for GECA's Strategy

The roundtable discussion offers several strategic insights for GECA's mission of promoting global crowdfunding harmonization:

Focus on Practical Barriers: Regulatory alignment alone won't solve passporting challenges - operational issues like taxation and KYC interoperability require equal attention.

  • Facilitate Platform Collaboration: Business model alignment may be as important as regulatory compliance for successful cross-border operations.

  • Promote Principle-Based Recognition: Perfect harmonization may be neither necessary nor achievable - functional equivalence through mutual recognition offers a more pragmatic path.

  • Leverage Climate Investment: Renewable energy and infrastructure investment provide compelling use cases for regulatory cooperation.

  • Build Regional Clusters: Geographic and cultural proximity may facilitate trust-building necessary for effective passporting.

  • Address Regulatory Philosophy: Technical compliance alignment must be accompanied by philosophical alignment about regulatory approach and enforcement.

The Passporting Paradox Resolved

The discussion reveals a fundamental paradox in passporting development: the most advanced harmonization efforts create frameworks that highlight rather than eliminate the practical barriers to cross-border operations. The ECSPR experience demonstrates both the possibility and the limitations of regulatory coordination.

However, this paradox points toward resolution through Wenzlaff's principle-based supervision approach. Rather than pursuing perfect harmonization, the industry can achieve many passporting benefits through mutual recognition frameworks that acknowledge both shared principles and local variations.

Success requires addressing three interconnected challenges:

  1. Regulatory Recognition: Developing mutual recognition frameworks based on shared principles rather than identical requirements

  2. Operational Harmonization: Solving practical barriers like taxation and KYC that persist even within harmonized regulatory frameworks

  3. Business Model Alignment: Creating collaboration frameworks that enable platform cooperation rather than just regulatory compliance

Conclusion: The Path Forward

The second GECA roundtable demonstrates that global crowdfunding passporting remains both necessary and achievable, but requires a more nuanced approach than simple regulatory harmonization. Wenzlaff's insights, drawn from direct experience architecting the world's most successful passporting system, provide a roadmap for practical progress.

The path forward involves building on existing successes while addressing revealed limitations. The ECSPR framework provides proof of concept for large-scale regulatory coordination, while North American and Indian experiences highlight both challenges and opportunities in different institutional contexts.

Most importantly, the discussion reveals that passporting success depends on industry participants actively shaping regulatory development rather than simply advocating for it. As Wenzlaff noted, rapid progress occurs "if politicians see the need to collaborate and recognize each other's licenses" driven by societal demand.

The climate investment imperative may provide the catalytic pressure necessary to accelerate this development. Global infrastructure investment needs transcend individual market capacity and create compelling use cases for regulatory cooperation that purely market-efficiency arguments cannot achieve.

For GECA and its members, the challenge is translating these insights into coordinated action that addresses both regulatory and operational barriers while building the political momentum necessary for meaningful progress. The conversation continues, but the foundation for practical advancement is clear.

Ready to explore the full discussion? Watch the complete Architects of Change panel where industry leaders examine the future of global equity crowdfunding: Breaking Down Borders - Full Discussion

Join the movement for borderless investment. GECA brings together platforms, regulators, and industry stakeholders to advance global equity crowdfunding. Learn more about membership opportunities and help shape the industry's future: thegeca.org/membership-app-form

by GECA

Breaking Down Borders: The Strategic Imperatives for Global Equity Crowdfunding

Industry Leaders Chart the Path to Borderless Capital Markets Through Cross-Platform Collaboration and Technological Innovation

The equity crowdfunding industry stands at a critical inflection point. While regulatory frameworks have matured and technological capabilities have advanced, the promise of truly global capital access remains largely unrealized. A recent GECA Architects of Change panel discussion brought together platform leaders from three continents to examine why cross-border investment remains constrained and what strategic interventions could unlock borderless capital flow.

The findings reveal both the scope of untapped opportunity and the complexity of barriers preventing its realization. More significantly, they point toward a coordinated path forward that could transform equity crowdfunding from a collection of national markets into an integrated global ecosystem.

The Scale of Market Fragmentation

The numbers define the challenge with stark clarity. In the United States, over 90 FINRA-regulated portals exist, yet only 10-20 actively facilitate meaningful capital raises. Europe presents an even more fragmented picture: despite the European Crowdfunding Service Providers Regulation creating unified licensing, over 200 ECSP-licensed platforms operate with limited cross-border activity.

This fragmentation extends beyond platform proliferation to fundamental market access inequities. Less than 1% of global investors qualify as accredited under current frameworks -a dramatic constraint compared to 3-9% in the United States alone. The implications are profound: vast pools of capital remain disconnected from promising entrepreneurial opportunities simply due to jurisdictional boundaries.

Eric A Cox II, COO of Netcapital, articulated the global opportunity: "If we talk about accredited investors, that's only three to nine percent of the United States. But globally it's less than 1% of investors globally are accredited. We really need to think more than just the United States investor, but the global investor participating in these deals."

Regulatory Architecture: Barriers Disguised as Protection

The panel revealed how regulatory frameworks, designed to protect investors, have inadvertently created systematic barriers to capital formation. The U.S. Regulation Crowdfunding (Reg CF) framework restricts offerings to domestic entities, effectively excluding international companies from America's largest retail investment market. European platforms, while benefiting from passport arrangements, face language requirements and local approval processes that create friction for truly pan-European campaigns.

These regulatory silos reflect a fundamental misalignment between global capital needs and national regulatory approaches. Jānis Blaževičs, CEO of CrowdedHero observed the practical implications: "You cannot target the German market once you haven't received approval from Bafin. There are some specifics on marketing, and I think it's more related to MiFID."

The fragmentation extends to operational infrastructure. Each platform requires separate KYC procedures, creating abandonment points for international investors. Payment processing limitations add additional layers of complexity, with currency conversion fees and settlement delays making small international investments economically unviable.

The Technology-Trust Paradox

Perhaps most striking was the panel's discussion of how technology could simultaneously solve and complicate cross-border investment. Blockchain technology offers compelling solutions for attribution, settlement, and compliance automation. Several European countries -including Germany, Luxembourg, and France - already approve distributed ledger technology for shareholder registries, providing regulatory precedent for broader adoption.

Yet implementation reveals nuanced challenges. Jason Fishman, CEO of Digital Niche Agency (DNA), highlighted the communication imperative: "The end audience, the perspective investor, needs to not only understand the company, the team, the deal - they have to be able to market it themselves. These are crowd campaigns; you're playing for the crowd effect."

This insight reveals a fundamental tension: while sophisticated technology can eliminate operational barriers, it must remain accessible to retail investors who drive crowdfunding success. The solution requires not just technical innovation but communication design that enables investor advocacy.

Secondary Market Liquidity: The Critical Infrastructure Gap

All panelists identified liquidity as the primary barrier preventing mainstream adoption of equity crowdfunding. The absence of viable exit mechanisms creates a structural disincentive for investor participation, particularly for international investments where due diligence and legal recourse may be more complex.

Cox outlined Netcapital's approach to this challenge: "We know that the true value for the investor would come from selling those shares. Companies are staying private longer, if not forever. So one thing that we've really always built our technology around was the ability to do the primary offering and then list those shares for trade on secondaries."

The secondary market opportunity extends beyond individual investor needs to industry sustainability. Platforms that can offer liquidity mechanisms will likely capture disproportionate market share as investors migrate toward more complete investment experiences.

Platform Collaboration: From Competition to Ecosystem Growth

The discussion revealed a sophisticated understanding of industry dynamics that transcends traditional competitive thinking. Rather than viewing other platforms as competitors for a fixed pool of capital, leading operators recognize that market expansion requires collaborative approaches.

Konstantin Boyko CEO of LenderKit, moderating the discussion, captured this strategic shift: "You need to collaborate. You need to share and grow the industry together because otherwise you are just competing for a small pie rather than making it bigger and then having the share."

This collaborative mindset creates opportunities for revenue-sharing arrangements, cross-platform deal syndication, and shared infrastructure development. The regulatory framework already supports such arrangements under Reg D in the United States, where multiple broker-dealers can collaborate on single offerings.

Market Education: The Awareness Imperative

Despite technological capabilities and regulatory frameworks, awareness remains a fundamental constraint. Fishman's observation that he has "had to explain to people roughly every day what equity crowdfunding is" since 2016 illustrates the education challenge facing the industry.

This awareness gap extends beyond retail investors to entrepreneurs and intermediaries who could benefit from crowdfunding but remain unfamiliar with available options. The education requirement spans multiple constituencies: entrepreneurs who could benefit from crowdfunding, retail investors who could access new asset classes, and institutions who could provide validation and scale.

The panel identified coordinated industry advocacy as essential for addressing awareness limitations. Building relationships with media, lobbying for supportive government partnerships, and creating educational resources require resources and coordination that exceed individual platform capabilities.

Strategic Implications: The Path to Global Integration

The panel discussion illuminates five strategic imperatives for achieving borderless equity crowdfunding:

Regulatory Harmonization Through Mutual Recognition: Rather than pursuing unified global regulation, the industry should advocate for bilateral mutual recognition agreements between compatible jurisdictions. This approach preserves local regulatory authority while enabling cross-border capital flow.

Technology Infrastructure That Enables Rather Than Complicates: Blockchain and digital identity solutions must prioritize accessibility and interoperability over technical sophistication. The goal is invisible infrastructure that eliminates friction without creating new barriers.

Secondary Market Development as Competitive Differentiation: Platforms that successfully implement liquidity mechanisms will capture disproportionate market share. This represents both opportunity and competitive imperative for industry participants.

Collaborative Revenue Models That Expand Market Size: Revenue-sharing arrangements for cross-platform deals can grow total industry volume while maintaining individual platform profitability. This requires sophisticated attribution systems but offers substantial upside potential.

Coordinated Market Education to Drive Mainstream Adoption: Individual platforms cannot efficiently address awareness gaps. Industry-wide education initiatives, potentially coordinated through organizations like GECA, offer better resource utilization and consistent messaging.

The Competitive Dynamics of Global Expansion

The transition to borderless crowdfunding will create both opportunities and risks for existing platforms. Early movers who successfully navigate international expansion will establish network effects and brand recognition that create sustainable competitive advantages. However, the complexity of cross-border operations may overwhelm platforms that lack sufficient scale or expertise.

This dynamic suggests potential industry consolidation, with successful global platforms acquiring or partnering with specialized local providers. The optimal industry structure likely resembles a federation: major platforms providing infrastructure and compliance capabilities while local partners contribute deal flow and cultural expertise.

Timing and Market Readiness

Several factors suggest the industry may be approaching a tipping point for global integration. Regulatory frameworks have stabilized in major markets, providing predictable operating environments. Blockchain infrastructure has matured sufficiently to support practical applications rather than experimental implementations. Most importantly, demographic trends favor adoption: millennial and Gen Z investors demonstrate greater comfort with digital platforms, alternative investments, and global thinking.

The panel's discussion suggests that platforms implementing cross-border capabilities today are positioning themselves for substantial growth as these trends accelerate. Conversely, platforms that remain domestically focused risk marginalization as more globally-oriented competitors capture the most engaged investors and highest-quality deal flow.

Conclusion: The Strategic Moment

The GECA panel discussion reveals an industry at a strategic inflection point. The technical capabilities, regulatory frameworks, and market infrastructure necessary for borderless equity crowdfunding largely exist. What remains is coordinated execution by industry leaders committed to moving beyond national market limitations.

The opportunity is substantial: democratized access to early-stage investment opportunities, optimized global capital allocation, and expansion of the investor class to include millions who currently lack access to private markets. The path forward requires collaboration rather than competition, patient capital rather than quick returns, and strategic vision rather than tactical optimization.

The platforms and leaders who recognize this moment and act decisively will shape the industry's evolution. Those who remain committed to domestic market strategies risk irrelevance in an increasingly connected global economy. The choice is clear, even if execution remains complex.

The future of equity crowdfunding will be global or it will be diminished. The strategic question is not whether borderless investment will emerge, but which stakeholders will lead its development and capture its value.

Ready to explore the full discussion? Watch the complete Architects of Change panel where industry leaders examine the future of global equity crowdfunding: Breaking Down Borders - Full Discussion

Join the movement for borderless investment. GECA brings together platforms, regulators, and industry stakeholders to advance global equity crowdfunding. Learn more about membership opportunities and help shape the industry's future: thegeca.org/membership-app-form

This analysis is based on GECA's Architects of Change panel discussion featuring Eric Cox (Netcapital), Jānis Blaževičs (CrowdedHero), Jason Fishman (DNA Marketing), and Konstantin Boyko (LenderKit), examining cross-border collaboration in equity crowdfunding.

by GECA

GECA Appoints European Crowdfunding Regulatory Expert Florence de Maupeou to Steering Committee

by GECA

GECA Welcomes Florence de Maupeou: European Crowdfunding Pioneer Brings Decade of Regulatory Expertise to Advance Borderless Investment Vision

France FinTech's Deputy General Manager for Institutional Relations & Crowdfunding joins steering committee to accelerate global harmonization efforts

The Global Equity Crowdfunding Alliance (GECA) is proud to announce that Florence de Maupeou has joined our steering committee as a strategic advisor. This appointment represents a significant milestone in GECA's mission to create truly borderless equity crowdfunding markets, bringing together one of Europe's most experienced crowdfunding advocates with our global vision for regulatory harmonization.

A Pioneer in European Crowdfunding Regulation

Florence de Maupeou's journey in crowdfunding began over a decade ago, positioning her as one of the industry's true pioneers. With a master's degree in Social and Solidarity Economy and sociology from a leading business school, she developed her deep understanding of financial inclusion through hands-on field experience across India and Latin America, studying the realities of microcredit as a tool for economic and social development.

In 2010, she entered the alternative finance space at Babyloan, Europe's first microcredit crowdfunding platform, where she served as Head of Institutional Relations. Under her direction in 2012, the Babyloan networks association was created to carry out advocacy, education, and awareness projects promoting social and solidarity economy principles alongside participatory financing, particularly in schools and colleges.

Her most transformative role began with Financement Participatif France (FPF), where she was involved from the association's very founding in 2012. Florence played a crucial role in developing the industry's code of ethics, serving as Secretary General in 2013, then Treasurer in 2014, before taking the permanent position of General Director in December 2014. Under her leadership, FPF grew to represent 150 members across the crowdfunding ecosystem, establishing France as the first country to promulgate dedicated crowdfunding regulations and helping facilitate over €9 billion in cumulative investment with annual flows exceeding €2 billion.

Andrew Field, Head of the GECA Steering Committee, commented: "Florence's decade-long leadership in building France's crowdfunding regulatory framework makes her an invaluable addition to our team. Her experience in harmonizing diverse stakeholder interests across 150+ platform members and her success in creating regulatory clarity that enabled billions in investment flows perfectly aligns with GECA's mission to achieve similar harmonization on a global scale."

Architect of French Crowdfunding Success

Florence's leadership at FPF coincided with crowdfunding's establishment as a major financing tool in France. Her strategic vision encompassed multiple critical areas:

Regulatory Advocacy: She coordinated lobbying efforts that positioned France at the forefront of European crowdfunding regulation, working directly with public authorities and regulators to create frameworks that balanced innovation with investor protection.

Industry Development: Through strategic planning, partnership development, and member coordination, she helped build an ecosystem that attracted international recognition and positioned French crowdfunding platforms for European expansion.

Industry Standards Development: Her foundational work in developing FPF's code of ethics established best practices that became industry standards, demonstrating her commitment to responsible innovation alongside market growth.

International Positioning: Her institutional relations work established France as a thought leader in European alternative finance discussions, setting the stage for broader harmonization efforts.

Strategic Merger: FPF and France FinTech Unite

In June 2024, Florence orchestrated a landmark strategic merger between FPF and France FinTech, creating the largest fintech association in Europe with over 350 members and 100 partners. This merger reflected her forward-thinking approach to industry evolution and her recognition that crowdfunding's future lies in broader fintech integration.

"For more than 10 years, FPF has supported crowdfunding players in their development and has been their voice with regulators and public authorities. The progress made is phenomenal, but today we need renewal and a broader sounding board," Florence explained during the merger announcement. "Because the subjects that we address are increasingly transversal with other fintech players, because the platforms are developing in various activities, because our issues are also becoming European, because the context is complicated and together we are stronger, the rapprochement of our two associations makes obvious sense today."

A Global Network for European Leadership

As Deputy General Manager for Institutional Relations & Crowdfunding at France FinTech, Florence now oversees regulatory strategy for an ecosystem that represents the full spectrum of financial innovation. Her role extends beyond France through her position as a Board Member of the European Digital Finance Association (EDFA), where she helps coordinate fintech policy across European markets.

This European perspective provides GECA with direct access to regulatory discussions, policy development processes, and harmonization efforts that span the continent's most sophisticated fintech markets. Florence's institutional relationships extend from the European Commission to national parliaments, providing GECA with invaluable insights into regulatory trends and opportunities for global coordination.

Expertise in Participatory Finance Evolution

Florence's experience spans the complete evolution of participatory finance, from early microcredit platforms to sophisticated equity crowdfunding ecosystems. Her expertise encompasses:

Reward crowdfunding: Understanding the keys to success for a reward or donation-based crowdfunding campaign, its democratic potential and its capacity for mobilization.

Crowdequity: Deep understanding of equity crowdfunding mechanics, regulatory requirements, and market development strategies.

Crowdlending: Comprehensive knowledge of peer-to-peer lending platforms, risk management frameworks, and regulatory compliance.

Real Estate Crowdfunding: Extensive experience in one of Europe's largest crowdfunding verticals, including investor protection and project evaluation.

Cross-Border Operations: Practical understanding of how platforms can operate across multiple jurisdictions while maintaining regulatory compliance.

Alignment with GECA's Mission

Florence's appointment comes at a crucial time as equity crowdfunding markets mature globally. Her experience in building consensus among diverse stakeholders while maintaining high standards aligns perfectly with GECA's approach to creating borderless investment opportunities.

"The future of crowdfunding is inherently global, but successful globalization requires the kind of regulatory expertise and institutional relationships that Florence possesses," noted Andrew Field, Head of GECA's steering committee. "Her proven ability to coordinate complex stakeholder groups and achieve regulatory clarity while fostering innovation makes her an ideal advisor as we work to harmonize standards across international markets."

Contributing to Global Harmonization

Florence's expertise will prove invaluable as GECA works to address key challenges in international crowdfunding:

Regulatory Coordination: Her experience in French and European regulatory development provides a proven blueprint for achieving consensus among diverse regulatory authorities.

Market Development: Her track record in building sustainable crowdfunding ecosystems offers practical insights for emerging markets seeking to develop their own frameworks.

Industry Standards: Her work in establishing best practices and ethical guidelines helps ensure that global harmonization maintains high standards for investor protection.

Cross-Border Innovation: Her understanding of how platforms can scale beyond domestic markets provides strategic guidance for GECA's borderless vision.

A Strategic Addition to GECA's Vision

With Florence's addition to the steering committee, GECA continues building the intellectual foundation needed to navigate complex international regulatory landscapes. Her appointment follows recent additions of other industry leaders, creating a steering committee with complementary expertise spanning regulatory design, market development, and global coordination.

"I'm honored to join GECA's steering committee at this transformative moment for global equity crowdfunding," Florence commented. "Throughout my career, I've seen how effective regulatory frameworks can unlock innovation while protecting investors. GECA's vision for borderless crowdfunding resonates deeply with the lessons we've learned in Europe about the power of harmonized standards and collaborative approaches to market development."

Building Tomorrow's Investment Infrastructure

As global crowdfunding markets continue evolving, Florence's expertise in regulatory strategy and institutional relations positions GECA to accelerate its mission of creating truly borderless investment opportunities. Her proven track record in building consensus, achieving regulatory clarity, and fostering sustainable market growth provides exactly the type of leadership needed to transform GECA's vision into reality.

The appointment of Florence de Maupeou signals that GECA is not just planning for the future of global crowdfunding - we're building it with the expertise and institutional relationships necessary to succeed.

About GECA

The Global Equity Crowdfunding Alliance (GECA) is an international organization dedicated to advancing regulatory harmonization, market development, and best practices in equity crowdfunding worldwide. Learn more at thegeca.org.

Contact: For media inquiries about GECA's steering committee appointments and global initiatives, please contact the steering committee at: contact@thegeca.org

Want to join GECA's mission? Visit thegeca.org/join to learn about supporter opportunities for platforms, service providers, and industry stakeholders.

by GECA