Part of the issue is that somehow you can buy just the "assets" half of a company and ignore the "liabilities" portion. And the assets include all the branding and brand name. So an essentially new copy of the previous company is made while fleecing all on the liabilities side.

For the bars that are being closed, they are less closed and more like abandoned remnants of the now-dead previous company. Perhaps the shareholders should just reclaim the abandoned items of value physically.

I looked at one crowdfunding offering, under the SEC "Regulation Crowdfunding" and it was totally obvious that the business in question was pursuing that path because sensible investors wouldn't be interested in investing.

I don't see how there's many real investment opportunities where crowdfunding wouldn't result in largely unfavorable terms for the crowd.

Please note its not just them, this article says no equity holders will get anything

The "we invented this really cool product, but minimum production batch is 5000 unities and we need money for the tooling investment" is the right way to use crowdfunding. People get the product, or the company missed something and goes bankrupt.

The "I have a software proof of concept, but I need money to make it usable" is also a good way, with a lot more certainty of outcome, but it's one that doesn't strictly require crowdfunding. And the author better publish what he has at the end of the funding.

All those variations of you getting equity or repayment are just bad.

Well, the "investment" came with perks like free beer occasionally, 15% off your tab, invite to private events, etc. Stuff you don't get when you buy a share of MSFT. In my mind if an investment comes with perks like that it's more of a donation than an investment

I was inches away from investing..

As George Carlin said, “it’s a big club, and you’re not in it.” Capitalism is not for the little guy, or at least not the version we’ve built.