换言之，典型的众筹投资回报很可能甚至比不上风投行业差强人意的回报率。如果是这样，投资者有什么理由要持续投钱呢？要知道，股权型众筹不同于Kickstarter。这里唯一的有形回报是货币，不是什么时尚手表。

    当然，可能会有一些超级成功的案例，推动持续投资，引来新用户(得益于媒体热评)。假定美国证券交易委员会(SEC)最后才决定出手介入，一开始用户数可能会出现飙升。

    但如果普通投资者发现众筹组合的回报率低于401(k)账户或个人股票投资组合，他们凭什么继续把钱投入众筹？传统风投公司筹集资金时往往会选择一个大的投资组合，设定长期投资时限。个人不一定会做这样的事。

    我听到的唯一反方论点是，在众筹投资中“支持有价值的初创企业”，它的意义不亚于投资回报率，或许是因为这家公司是一家本地公司，或许是因为投资者非常认同这家公司更宏观的社会使命。

    如果是这样，那很好，我真心支持。但这有一个很大的问题，它等于说众筹只是“慈善资本主义”的改头换颜，而并不是初创企业早期融资模式的改革。这样的说辞绝对无法打动展示日的出席者们，让他们掏出支票本。只要他们还想跑赢标普500的话，他们就不会这么干。

    In other words, odds are that typical crowdfunding investment returns won't even reach venture capital's mediocre heights. And, if that proves out, why are investors going to keep investing? Remember, equity-based crowdfunding is different than Kickstarter. The only tangible return here is money, not a trendy watch.

    To be sure, there could be some massive hits that would both propel repeat investment and prompt new users (thanks to the inevitable media blitz). And the initial user surge may be huge, assuming that the SEC eventually chooses to do its job.

    But if the average person generates lower returns from their crowdfunding portfolio than from their 401(k) or personal stock portfolio, why would they allocate future dollars to the former? When traditional VC firms raise funds, they commit to a large portfolio and a long-term time horizon. Individuals don't necessarily do the same.

    The only counter-argument I've heard is that crowdfunding is just as much about supporting worthy startups as it is about ROI. Maybe because the company is local, or the investor agrees with its broader social mission.

    That's all wonderful, and I wholeheartedly endorse such efforts. But it's also a very long tail dragging on the ground -- creating a "charitable capitalism" niche rather than revolutionizing early-stage finance. That's not what should get the Demo Day attendees reaching for their checkbooks. Well, not so long as those attendees would like to outperform the S&P 500.