(PDF) The European Crowdfunding Market Report 2023

The

European

Crowdfunding

Market

Report 2023

Rotem Shneor, Karsten Wenzla,

Konstantin Boyko, Prince Baah-Peprah,

Ana Odorovi, Olga Okhrimenko

The report presents the ndings of the European Crowdfunding Market Survey 2023. It outlines

key facts and gures with respect to all European Crowdfunding Market stakeholders including

platforms, backers, and fundraisers. In addition, it presents facts and gures concerning issues

related to regulation, public knowledge, and technical aspects of crowdfunding platform man-

agement practices. Findings are presented at aggregate European, national, and model levels.

Peer review

The report text and ndings have been reviewed by four independent reviewers in three Euro-

pean countries. All reviewers were not involved at any stage of preparation, write-up, or making

of the report. All reviewers hold a PhD degree, and work at European Universities.

The Electronic version of the Report is available to download from the website of the Crowd-

funding Research Center at the University of Agder’s School of Business and Law. Available

under “publications” here: https://www.crowdfunding-research.org/

Published by the Crowdfunding Research Center

University of Agder

School of Business and Law

Kristiansand, Norway

Tel: +47-38142311

E-Book ISBN: 978-82-693153-2-5

Contents

Forewords ............................................................................................................

Research team .....................................................................................................

Acknowledgements .............................................................................................

Executive summary .............................................................................................

Introduction ..........................................................................................................

Chapter 1. Market Overview ...............................................................................

1.1 Number of platforms ............................................................................................

1.2 Volumes per platform ...........................................................................................

1.3 Public knowledge of crowdfunding ......................................................................

1.4 Crowdfunding Market Readiness Index (CMRI) 2022 ..........................................

1.5 Markets in focus: insights from the eld .............................................................

Chapter 2: Platforms ...........................................................................................

2.1 Years in business ..................................................................................................

2.2 International scope ...............................................................................................

2.3 Models and model combinations .........................................................................

2.4 Interest and default rates ......................................................................................

2.5 Licensing ..............................................................................................................

2.5.1 Volume dierences in licensed vs non-licensed investment platforms ......

2.5.2 Types of licenses used by platforms ..........................................................

2.5.3 Perceived regulatory needs and adequacy ................................................

2.5.4 Status of ECSP licensing ...........................................................................

2.5.5 Attitudes towards ECSP .............................................................................

2.6 Relations with traditional nance ..........................................................................

2.7 Mergers and Acquisitions .....................................................................................

2.8 Costs ....................................................................................................................

2.9 Impact measures ..................................................................................................

Chapter 3: Fundraisers .......................................................................................

3.1 Fundraiser onboarding and success rates ...........................................................

3.2 Number of fundraisers ..........................................................................................

3.3 Number of fundraisers per platform .....................................................................

3.4 Age distribution of fundraisers .............................................................................

3.5 Sex distribution of fundraisers ..............................................................................

5

8

11

14

23

29

31

36

37

39

43

45

49

52

53

54

55

57

60

61

63

67

69

70

73

76

77

82

84

3.6 Repeat fundraisers.................................................................................................

3.7 Organizational type of fundraisers ........................................................................

Chapter 4: Backers .............................................................................................

4.1 Number of backers ...............................................................................................

4.2 Backer age ...........................................................................................................

4.3 Backer sex ............................................................................................................

4.4 Repeat backers ....................................................................................................

4.5 Type of backers ....................................................................................................

4.6 International backers ............................................................................................

Chapter 5: Crowdfunding technology ...............................................................

5.1 Technology overview ............................................................................................

5.2 Tech strategies by model and region ...................................................................

5.3 Payment processing .............................................................................................

5.4 Advanced feature usage .......................................................................................

5.5 Blockchain usage .................................................................................................

5.6 Process automation ..............................................................................................

Endnotes ..............................................................................................................

87

90

94

99

101

104

106

109

114

115

118

120

123

125

127

Forewords

5

Dear reader,

The European crowdfunding market represents an exciting setting for examining the growing

pervasiveness of alternative nance in the past two decades. Since its birth, this industry has

weathered the challenges of building legitimacy vis-à-vis the established nancial sector, it has

negotiated and continues to negotiate regulatory amendments, as well as educating stakehold-

ers about the opportunities and risks that come with relevant business model innovations. In

addition, it has also maintained growth despite macroeconomic uncertainties following a global

pandemic, energy market transformation, as well as wars at the European periphery.

Unsurprisingly, public interest in crowdfunding continues to grow thanks to its potential to aid

and serve individuals and businesses, carrying promises of more democratized nance and

improved access to badly needed nance in a variety of sectors. This is especially true at times

when traditional actors become more apprehensive while overlooking important segments in

the economy.

The current report presents comprehensive and insightful research into the current state of

the European crowdfunding industry and market. It addresses questions relevant for all key

stakeholders including platform managers, fundraisers, backers/investors, as well as regulators

and educators.

We at the University of Agder’s School of Business and Law maintain our commitment to

research crowdfunding and its impact on multiple stakeholders at the local, national, regional,

and international levels. Our Center for Crowdfunding Research is an internationally recognized

knowledge hub maintaining a wide network of collaborations with academia, industry, and

government entities internationally.

For the rst time, we are excited to closely collaborate with LenderKit and CrowdSpace in

delivering the current report. This partnership is based on common aspirations for excellence

and leadership in understanding the European crowdfunding market through both practice and

scholarly work.

Forewords

6

Centre for Crowdfunding Research

School of Business and Law

University of Agder

Prof. Rotem Shneor

uia.no

crowdfunding-research.org

In conclusion, we maintain our strong commitment to this important line of work and look for-

ward to following its development through ever more ambitious research in the future.

Best regards,

Forewords

7

CEO at LenderKit and CrowdSpace

Konstantin Boyko

The crowdfunding scene in Europe has been an interesting space and has put in a lot of

eort to establish its credibility alongside traditional nance in recent times. As LenderKit and

CrowdSpace are both part of the crowdfunding ecosystem, representing its technical and

educational aspects, we have been focusing on constant research for the past few years, par-

ticularly during global uncertainties such as the pandemic or changes in energy markets.

Our previous studies on the crowdfunding market primarily focused on its technological

aspects while briey touching upon regulatory and marketing challenges. However, this time

around, we conducted a comprehensive analysis of the market. Our collaboration with Rotem

Shneor from the School of Business and Law at the University of Adger has been instrumen-

tal in this regard. By combining practical industry knowledge with scholarly insights, we have

gained a better understanding of this exciting market.

It’s not just numbers; it’s a story about how platforms work, how people who back projects and

invest behave, and how technology is changing the game.

The dynamics of crowdfunding platforms, investor behavior, and the impact of technology are

fundamental aspects that shape the crowdfunding industry. This report is a preliminary step

towards more comprehensive research and a commitment to exploring the evolving crowd-

funding landscape in greater detail.

Best regards,

lenderkit.com

thecrowdspace.com

Research team

8

Rotem Shneor is a full professor of entrepreneurship at the University of Agder (UiA) School

of Business and Law in Norway and is the leader of the university’s Crowdfunding Research

Center. His research includes issues related to crowdfunding behaviour and motivations, inter-

net marketing, and cognitive aspects of entrepreneurship. His research has been published in

leading academic journals in the areas of management, entrepreneurship, information systems,

and marketing. He has served as lead editor and author of a popular book titled “Advances

in Crowdfunding: Research and Practice” published in 2020 by Palgrave MacMillan. Since

2023, he has served as Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Alternative Finance (ALF) published by

SAGE Publishing. In recent years, he has also been an aliate researcher with the Cambridge

University Center for Alternative Finance, co-authoring the annual alternative nance bench-

marking reports. Complementary to his academic research and teaching, he is closely involved

in industry collaboration with entrepreneurial hubs and actors in the crowdfunding and FinTech

sectors. His expertise has made him a popular speaker and media commentator on issues

related to crowdfunding in the Nordic countries, Europe and globally.

Karsten Wenzla is the Secretary-General of Digital Invest Germany - the German Crowdfund-

ing Association and organizes the European alliance of Fintech Stakeholders. His research

focuses on alternative nance, FinTech and crowdfunding, with special interest in civic

crowdfunding, corporate crowdfunding, and the adaptation of nancial innovation through

articial intelligence by Fintechs. He is a lecturer and researcher at the University of Hamburg’s

Chair for Digital Markets. He holds an MPhil degree in International Relations with a thesis on

international nancial regulation from the University of Cambridge. Karsten was the author of

the rst European Crowdfunding-Survey in 2011. Since 2013, he has supported the Cambridge

Centre for Alternative Finance (CCAF) with the Alternative Finance Benchmarking Report and

has co-edited these reports since 2017. In 2020, he co-authored the CCAF’s Global Alternative

Finance Benchmarking Report and became part of the Centre’s COVID-19 Response Team.

Editors and authors

Rotem Shneor

Karsten Wenzlaff

Research team

9

Research team

Konstantin Boyko is an entrepreneur and tech visionary with over 15 years of experience

building innovative digital products. He’s the Co-founder and CEO of LenderKit, a crowd-

funding software designed to make it easier to create fundraising and crowdlending platforms

worldwide. Besides, he founded CrowdSpace, a hub that brings together crowdfunding and

alternative nance platforms in Europe. Konstantin actively participates in industry surveys and

reports with the Crowdfunding Research Center in Adger, Norway. His academic background

includes a PhD in Mathematics, lending an analytical approach to the ongoing survey. With

his expertise in entrepreneurship, technology, and math combined, Konstantin signicantly

impacts the survey’s depth and the FinTech eld’s evolution, playing a crucial role in advancing

understanding within the crowdfunding community.

Prince Baah-Peprah (Ph.D.) is an assistant professor at the University of Agder (UiA) who spe-

cializes in crowdfunding research while engaging in teaching entrepreneurship courses. He is

an active member of UiA Crowdfunding Research Centre and serves as an expert in advanced

quantitative analysis methods such as Structural Equation Modeling. His research is related

to crowdfunding marketing strategies, investor behavior, entrepreneurs’ adoption and ethical

issues in crowdfunding. He has been publishing in leading academic journals, contributed

chapters to edited volumes, and won the best paper award at an international conference and

held talks in several crowdfunding summits.

Ana is a PhD candidate at the Institute of Law and Economics of the University of Hamburg.

She is also research aliate at the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance at the Judge

Business School (CCAF) where she has been engaged as a tutor for the Cambridge Fintech

and Regulatory Innovation (CFTRI) programme since its creation in 2019. Her research is

Konstantin Boyko

Prince Baah-Peprah

Ana Odorović

Between 2014 and 2016, Karsten served as a member of the European Crowdfunding Stake-

holder Forum, an advisory body to the European Commission. He has been a lecturer in the

Cambridge Center Financial Technology and Regulatory Innovation program since its incep-

tion, lecturing to regulators from across the world. He also works as a consultant for interna-

tional organizations and regulatory bodies.

10

Research team

Olga oversees marketing and communications at CrowdSpace — a directory of European

crowdfunding platforms. Together with Konstantin Boyko and their team, she delves into

crowdfunding research, crafting comprehensive industry reports. This time, she joined the

research team to help with survey distribution and the write-up of the chapter on crowdfunding

technology.

Olga Okhrimenko

interdisciplinary and focuses on the economic analysis of ntech laws and regulations. She has

published widely on the questions of crowdfunding regulation and acted as a consultant in this

eld for a number of renowned institutions, such as the European Commission and the World

Bank.

Acknowledgements

11

Acknowledgements

We extend our sincere gratitude to the following crowdfunding associations for their invaluable

assistance in spreading our survey across Europe:

We also express our heartfelt appreciation to the above-mentioned associations and their

representatives for their collaboration and support, which greatly facilitated the dissemination

of our survey within the European crowdfunding landscape.

Special thanks go to Barry James and his excellent team from the Crowdfunding Center in

the UK for their helpful collaboration in providing us with data from Kickstarter and Indiegogo

global platforms.

Bulgarian FinTech Association — Georgi Penev

Czech and Slovak Crowdfunding Association — Andrea Milecová

Danish Crowdfunding Association (Dansk Crowdfunding Forening) — Michael Eis

Dutch SME Financing Association (Stichting MKB Financiering) — Ronald Kleverlaan

FinTech Latvia Association (FLA) — Tīna Lūse

French Crowdfunding Association (Financement Participatif France) — Florence de Mapou

German Crowdfunding Association (Bundesverband Crowdfunding) — Karsten Wenzla

Norwegian Crowdfunding Association (Norsk Crowdfunding Forening) — Rotem Shneor

Lithuanian P2P Lending Association - Dr. Vytautas Šenavičius

Romanian FinTech Association — Cristian Pasa

UK Crowdfunding Association — Daniel Rajkumar

Acknowledgements

12

Additionally, we wish to thank the following crowdfunding platforms for providing the data

essential for our research:

13

Acknowledgements

Executive summary

14

Executive summary

Market overview

• As of March 2023, there were 594 crowdfunding platforms operating in Europe, and since

some platforms operate in multiple countries there were 785 platform-country pairs.

• The countries served by the largest number of platforms in absolute terms include Germany,

the UK, and France. The Baltic countries (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania) punch well beyond

their relative size in terms of number of platforms operating per capita.

• Overall, the annual average volume of funds raised per platform increased from 16m EUR in

2021 to 19m EUR in 2022, an increase of 17%.

• Lending platforms reported an average volume per year of 19m EUR in 2021, which in-

creased to 24m EUR in 2022. In contrast, equity-based crowdfunding platforms and non-in-

vestment platforms reported similar volumes in 2021 and 2022 standing at roughly 15m EUR

in equity and 9m EUR in non-investment.

• Geographically, the fastest growth in average volumes was recorded in Eastern Europe with

13% (from 11.3m EUR in 2021 to 12.9m EUR in 2022). However, the average 2022 volumes

of Northern European platforms, standing at 27M, were the highest in Europe. These were

59% higher than those of Western European platforms, 125% higher than those of Eastern

European platforms, and 463% higher than those of Southern European platforms.

• Public knowledge about crowdfunding was viewed as insucient by 70% of European equi-

ty platforms and 67% of lending platforms. By contrast, only one third of the non-investment

platforms argued that public knowledge was insucient.

• Insucient public knowledge about crowdfunding was indicated in all regions: 69% of East-

ern European platforms, 61% of Western European platforms, 57% of Southern European,

and 51% of Northern European platforms.

• The CMRI (Crowdfunding Market Readiness Index) incorporates six indicators of market

development level. The Netherlands emerged as the top scoring market with top rankings on

all indicators. It was followed by Norway, and Denmark.

• Among larger economies, the UK represents the leading market with top rankings on licens-

ing, public knowledge, and volumes per capita. It is closely followed by France with even

higher volumes per capita, but with slightly lower public knowledge of crowdfunding, and

slightly lower engagement of the crowd in terms of number of backers and fundraisers.

Executive summary

15

Platforms

• Most platforms have been operating for 8-9 years. The gradually falling number of platforms

that were established in the following years suggests a gradual maturation of the industry.

• Platform volumes and years in business are only weakly and positively associated, suggest-

ing that rst mover advantages of older platforms are limited, and younger platforms can

compete with more mature ones based on other characteristics than tenure.

• Platforms predominantly operated in one country as indicated by 80.5% of platforms in

2021, and 82.6% of platforms in 2022.

• International outreach is most common among platforms with headquarters in Eastern Eu-

rope, and least common among platforms with headquarters in Southern Europe.

• In 2021, international ows accounted for about 17.4% of the total ows in lending and 2.3%

in equity. International ows into non-investment models were negligible. In 2022, the portion

of international ows into equity-based crowdfunding increased to 5.4%. In contrast, the

portion of international funds owing into lending crowdfunding dropped to 12%.

• Northern Europe is the region that beneted the most from international ows, which ac-

counted for 32.6% of total volumes in 2021, and 24.9% of total volumes in 2022. The region

beneting the least from international ows was Southern Europe, peaking at 0.5% of total

volumes being associated with international ows in 2022.

• 60% of European platforms indicate operating with a single crowdfunding model. 25% of

platforms combine 2 models, 10% operate 3 models, whereas 4% oer 4 models under one

roof.

• In the equity cluster, revenue sharing is often combined with equity crowdfunding. In the

lending cluster, P2P business and property lending are often combined. And in the non-in-

vestment cluster, one-time and subscription-based donations are often combined.

• Frequent model combinations across clusters include fractional ownership of real estate

assets with P2P business lending; security tokens with P2P business lending; and minibonds

with equity crowdfunding.

• 68.6% of equity, 61.8% of lending, and 43.2% of non-investment platforms report at least

one type of collaborative relationship with traditional nancial institutions (TFIs). Equi-

ty-based platforms most commonly engage in lead exchange (25.7%) and strategic partner-

ship (20%) with TFIs. Also, lending platforms mostly engage in strategic partnership (25%)

and lead exchange (17.1%) with TFIs. Non-investment platforms mostly engage in collabora-

tions around promotional (17.1%) and strategic matters (14.3%) with TFIs.

• The largest the volumes overseen by the platform the closer and more diverse the collabo-

16

Executive summary

Licensing

• In line with the risks associated with each model, a large majority of equity (81.6%) and debt

(65.5%) platforms are licensed, while only 27.6% of non-investment platforms are licensed.

• In the equity cluster, 81.1% of platforms report operating under one form of license or

another, while 18.9% remain unlicensed. The most frequently license type used is a bespoke

national crowdfunding license (25%).

• In the equity cluster, licensed platforms oversaw an average volume of EUR 49M and EUR

51M in 2021 and 2022 respectively, while unlicensed ones oversaw an average volume of

EUR 6.4M and EUR 7.4M respectively in the same years.

• In the lending cluster, 68.7% of platforms report operating under one form of license or

another, while 31.3% remain unlicensed. The latter related to lack of clarity of license require-

ments for P2P consumer versus business lending. The most frequently licenses used are

national traditional nancial institution licenses (25%) or other espoke national crowdfunding

licenses (17%).

• In the lending cluster, licensed platforms oversaw an average volume of EUR 25.8M and EUR

32.5M in 2021 and 2022 respectively, while unlicensed ones oversaw an average volume of

EUR 18M and EUR 24M respectively in the same years.

• In the non-investment cluster, 27.6% of platforms report operating under one form of license

or another, while 72.4% are unlicensed. The most frequently licenses type used are national

traditional nancial institution (10%) or other espoke national crowdfunding licenses (10%).

ration they have with TFIs, and the more likely they are to become partially or fully owned by

TFIs.

• A minority of platforms across models have engaged in mergers and acquisitions in the past:

12% of equity, 15.5% of lending, and 6.8% of non-investment platforms. However, larger

shares expect to be engaged in mergers and acquisitions in coming years: 42% of equity,

53% of lending, and 31% of non-investment platforms.

• Cost structures of investment platforms are similar and dominated by sales and marketing

(25%) as well as R&D (27%-31%). Non-investment models devote smaller shares of their

budgets for ensuring legal compliance (10%) when compared to investment platforms (17%),

and hence devote larger shares to R&D (38.7% of costs) for streamlining of processes in a

low margins’ sector.

• A large share of platforms across models indicates the use of governance impact measure-

ment systems: 41% of equity, 43% of lending, and 52% of non-investment models.

17

Executive summary

Onboarding and Success

• Non-investment platforms seem to engage in minimum campaign ltering beyond the ab-

solute minimum necessary (i.e., AML, CTF, and fraud detection), while accepting more than

95% of campaigns for publication. Investment platforms apply much more stringent ltering

where in equity only 10% of campaigns are onboarded, while in lending the share stands

closer to 16% in 2021 and 14% in 2022.

• Fundraiser onboarding rates are signicantly lower in Western and Northern Europe, roughly

ranging around 30% every year. Rates of around 50% are recorded in Southern European

platforms, while rates closer to 90% are recorded in Eastern Europe.

• Fundraisers’ success (reaching minimum goal sum) rates remain high, standing at 92% in

equity, 99% in lending, and ranging between 75% and 92% in non-investment models.

• Fundraisers’ success rates remain high regardless of region, with particularly high success

rates in Eastern (99%) and Northern Europe (98%). The lowest success rates are recorded in

Southern Europe at above 60%.

• Across models, most platforms deem current regulation as adequate. The greatest dis-

content is registered amongst lending platforms, where 32% view existing regulation more

critically. This may be linked to less regulatory clarity with respect to P2P consumer lending,

as well as abilities to implement automatic agents for investing in portfolios rather than single

loans.

• The greatest satisfaction exists among platforms that hold a license from a non-nancial

authority, with 69% viewing regulation as adequate. This is followed by platforms holding

a bespoke crowdfunding license, where 53% view regulation as adequate. In contrast, the

lowest level of satisfaction is among platforms holding a license of a traditional nancial insti-

tution, where 48% do not view regulation as adequate.

• Results from Spring 2023 indicate that 48% of equity platforms had not yet applied for an

ECSP license. Similarly, 56% of lending platforms had not yet applied for an ECSP license.

• Most platforms agree with the following potential amendments to the ECSP: inclusion of

consumer credit lending into the scope of the ECSP (58%), increase of the 5M EUR limit for

oerings under the ECSP (62%), increase of the 1000 EUR limit on individual investment

(60%), and expressed preferences for implementing investor knowledge qualications over

setting a xed amount threshold (61%).

18

Executive summary

Fundraisers

• Across models, most platforms had less than 51 fundraisers in both 2021 (53.0%) and 2022

(48.7%). Platforms with the highest number of fundraisers (501 and above), represented

14.8% and 16.5% of all platforms respectively in 2021 and 2022.

• Platforms that are licensed, those collaborating with traditional nancial institutions, and

those operating in markets where the public is suciently knowledgeable about crowdfund-

ing, can attract substantially larger numbers of fundraisers than those who do not.

• In investment models, the share of large-scale equity platforms (overseeing more than

200 fundraisers) increased from 6.4% in 2021 to 9.1% in 2022, and in lending platforms it

increased from 17.8% to 24.7% in the same period. In non-investment, the share of such

platforms decreased from 40.7% in 2021 to 34.4% in 2022.

• Across regions, more than half of the surveyed platforms conrmed overseeing less than

51 fundraisers both in 2021 and 2022. In Western Europe this group represents 70% of all

platforms and in Northern Europe it represents 53% of all platforms.

• Younger people are more likely to engage in fundraising employing non-investment or lend-

ing services. In contrast, more mature individuals appear as fundraisers in equity, where 98%

of fundraisers in Southern Europe and 74% of fundraisers in Western Europe are 46-55 years

old, and 40% of fundraisers in Northern Europe are 56-65 years old.

• Men continue to represent most fundraisers across most models and regions, with signi-

cantly larger imbalances between men and women in investment models. The largest share

of female equity fundraisers is recorded in Western Europe (32%) and the lowest in Southern

Europe (3.5%). The largest share of female borrowers is in Eastern and Northern Europe

(roughly 35%) and the lowest in Western Europe (18%). Finally, the largest shares of female

non-investment fundraisers are in Southern, Northern, and Western Europe with close to

50% of fundraisers, while in Eastern Europe this share stands at 40%.

• In equity platforms, the larger the share of female fundraisers the higher the volumes raised.

In lending platforms, the higher the share of female fundraisers the lower the volumes raised.

And in non-investment platforms there is a curvilinear relation with an optimal share of fe-

male fundraisers at 40%, where lower or higher shares of females are associated with lower

volumes.

• While equity and non-investment models are dominated by one-time fundraisers, lending

attracts more repeat fundraisers. Shares of repeat borrowers are particularly high in Northern

Europe, where close to 95% of fundraisers are repeat borrowers, which is followed by 53%

of borrowers in Southern Europe, and 47.5% in Western Europe.

• In investment models, the relationship between share of repeat fundraisers and volumes on

19

Executive summary

Backers and investors

• The number of backers across Europe fell slightly by 1.91% between 2021 and 2022; and is

estimated at 3.6 million. This reduction is considered trivial amid the aftermath of the cov-

id-19 pandemic and growing economic uncertainties.

• While the number of equity investors fell by 18.7% between 2021 and 2022, the number of

lenders in lending models increased by 29.6%. The reduction in backers of non-investment

models stood at 4.5%.

• Most platforms reported serving less than 500 backers in both 2021 (42.6%) and 2022

(37.3%). The second largest group of platforms are those reporting serving between 1001-

5000 backers (roughly 25% of platforms in both years). Moreover, the share of platforms

servicing 10K-50K backers grew from 12.0% in 2021 to 16.4% in 2022.

• 64.5% and 59.7% of equity crowdfunding platforms had fewer than 500 backers in 2021 and

2022 respectively. This trend was mirrored in both lending, where 54.2% and 48.6% of the

platforms served fewer than 500 backers in 2021 and 2022, respectively; and non-invest-

ment, where 40% and 34.6% of the platforms served fewer than 500 backers in 2021 and

2022, respectively.

• In equity, investors aged 36-45 dominate Eastern Europe, representing 89% and 97% of

investors in 2021 and 2022, respectively. In Northern Europe younger investors, aged 26-35,

dominate the market representing 61% and 73% of investors in 2021 and 2022, respectively.

In contrast, in Western Europe, older investors, aged 46 and higher, dominate while repre-

senting 63% of investors.

• In lending investors aged 36-45 seem to capture a similar proportion of investors regardless

of region, while ranging between 32% in Southern Europe to 38% in Northern Europe in

2022.

platforms is curvilinear, explaining 4.5% of volumes in equity, and 20.1% in lending; also

suggesting optimal points around 50% in equity and 60% in lending. Interestingly, the rela-

tionship is opposite in non-investment models, while explaining 8.5% of variance in volumes,

with lowest volumes when close to 50% of fundraisers are repeat fundraisers.

• Across regions and models, SME fundraisers dominated equity models in all regions with

92.5%, 81.6%, 58.3%, and 58.1% in Southern, Western, Eastern, and Northern Europe

respectively. Similarly, SME fundraisers also dominated lending models in most regions with

67.1%, 58.1%, and 66.5% in the Western, Northern, and Southern Europe respectively.

• Non-investment models recorded a notable proportion of non-prot fundraisers representing

52.0%, 43.3%, 25.8% and 20.3% of fundraisers in Southern, Eastern, Western and Northern

respectively.

20

Executive summary

• In non-investment crowdfunding, backers aged 46 and above represent the largest portions

of backers in Western, Southern, and Northern Europe capturing 47.3%, 45.9%, and 39.1%

of backers, respectively during 2022. In Eastern Europe backers aged 36-45 represent the

largest portion of backers, representing 50% of backers in 2021 and 2022.

• While women dominate backers of non-investment models, representing between 52% and

60% across regions, they are a minority among investors in investment models where they

only represent between 18% and 27% of investors in equity, and 7% to 27% of investors in

lending in 2022 respectively.

• The lowest shares of women backers are documented in Southern Europe, where 6.7%

of lenders and 18.1% of equity investors are women. On the other hand, higher shares of

women backers are seen in Western and Northern Europe, where they range between 24.8%

to 26.7%.

• In non-investment, a higher share of women backers leads to higher volumes raised. In eq-

uity the same logic follows, but up until the point where most investors are women, and then

volumes raised fall slightly. In lending, however, there seems to be an optimal point at around

30% women lenders. Up to this point increasing shares of women investors lead to volume

increase, but after it they lead to volumes’ decrease.

• Across regions, most backers on investment platforms during 2022 were repeat investors,

representing 60.6% of equity investors and 66.6% of investor-lenders. However, in non-in-

vestment models only 20.6% were repeat backers.

• Relations between share of repeat backers and volumes raised on platform follows an invert-

ed U-shape in both investment models, with an optimum point at around 50% of backers in

equity and 75% in lending. The same relations follow a U-shape in non-investment models,

with a minimum point at around 60% repeat backers.

• Across all regions and models, private investors represent most backers in both 2021 and

2022. Private investors constituted 72.4% of equity and 78.5% of lending investors, as well

as 94.5% of non-investment backers in 2022.

• In equity platforms organizational investors captured similar shares ranging between 26%

and 32% of investors in Eastern, Western, and Southern Europe. However, organizational in-

vestors represented a substantially lower share of equity investors in Northern Europe (11%).

• In lending, Western and Northern Europe saw organizational investor involvement represent-

ing 20%-23% of investors, whereas in Eastern and Southern Europe they represented 9.1%

and 13.9%.

• There is no clear association between the share of organizational backers and volumes

raised on non-investment platforms. However, this association does exist in investment

models, but is not linear while taking a U-shape with a minimum point of 50% organizational

21

Executive summary

Technology

• 60% of equity and 64% of lending platforms built their crowdfunding software in-house.

In contrast, only 19% of the platforms operating non-investment-based models built their

software in-house. 50% of non-investment platforms outsourced the development of their

platforms, while only 19% of lending and 22% of equity platforms did the same.

• Buying crowdfunding software was the second most popular strategy for non-investment

platforms, as 24% of platforms chose this option. However, this strategy was the least popu-

lar among lending and equity platforms with only 3% and 2% of the platforms reporting this

choice, respectively.

• Platforms from Eastern (92%), Western (61%) and Northern Europe (64%) built the platform

in-house, while in Southern Europe only a minority did so (8%)preferring to outsource their

crowdfunding software development (77%).

• Usage of third-party payment service providers, when compared to using own system, pre-

vails across all models as reported by 92% in equity, 79% in lending and 83% in non-invest-

ment platforms.

• 31% of platforms from Eastern Europe and 36% from Northern Europe operate their own

payment solution, as opposed to just 3% in Western and 19% in Southern Europe.

investors in both equity and lending.

• Across models and regions, most backers originate from domestic rather than international

markets.

• In equity, platforms in Western, Northern, and Southern Europe report 1%-7% international

investors, while in Eastern Europe international investors represented 38.5% of all investors.

• Lending, on the other hand, represents the most internationally inuenced model in relative

terms. Where 29% of investors in Northern Europe, 25.9% of investors in Eastern Europe,

and 10.9% of investors in Western Europe are international investors.

• Regardless of model and region, most international backers come from other and neighbor-

ing European countries rather than non-European countries. The largest share of non-Eu-

ropean based investors was reported by equity platforms in Eastern Europe with 6.7% of all

investors.

• When examining relations between share of foreign backers and volumes raised on plat-

forms, we nd no clear association in the case of equity platforms. Nevertheless, a positive

association is identied in the case of lending platforms, and a negative association in the

case of non-investment platforms.

Executive summary

22

• Most popular additional features already used by equity platforms include early access to

investment opportunities (44%), followed by referral system (32%), legal tech (24%), and

secondary market (22%).

• The top features equity platforms are planning to implement in the future include mobile

applications (30%), secondary market (26%) and auto-investing (26%).

• Most popular additional features already used by lending platforms include referral systems

(45%), secondary market (38%), mobile app (35%), auto-investing (35%), early access to

investing opportunities (31%), and open banking (26%).

• The top features lending platforms are planning to implement in the future include mobile

applications (31%), secondary market (29%), and auto-investing (29%).

• Non-investment platforms invest the least in additional features. Those that have been imple-

mented include a referral system (16%), early access to opportunities (14%), and a mobile

app (10%).

• The top features non-investment platforms are planning to implement in the future include a

mobile app and secondary market feature (14% each).

• Only a small proportion of platforms use or plan to use blockchain across models. The

highest adoption is among equity crowdfunding platforms, with asset tokenization being the

most popular application (6%), followed by secondary trading (4%), and crypto payments

(2%).

• Asset tokenization is in the R&D pipeline of 21% of lending platforms and 18% of equity

platforms, also followed by secondary trading (19% and 16%) and crypto payments (12%

and 8%).

• When considering process automation, platforms view the following activities as relevant for

such development: payment processing, credit scoring and risk assessment, business valu-

ation, due diligence, KYC verication, analytics and reporting tools, AI and machine learning

for fraud prevention, etc.

Introduction

23

The European crowdfunding market is

dynamic and constantly evolving, while often

representing balancing acts between harmo-

nization trends, as driven by cross-border

scaling opportunities, and fragmentation

trends, as resulting from the local anchor-

ing of activities (Wenzla et al., 2020). The

current report is set to provide an up-to-date

review of the European Crowdfunding indus-

try covering facts and insights for the years

2021 and 2022.

In its modern manifestation, crowdfunding is

dened as a fundraising method involving the

collection of relatively small amounts from a

large pool of funding providers via the Inter-

net and with no or little involvement of tradi-

tional nancial intermediaries. Earlier reports

presenting insights on the crowdfunding

industry have often covered a wider scope of

services under the broad term of “alternative

nance” (e.g., Ziegler et al., 2018; Ziegler et

al., 2019; Ziegler et al., 2021; Ziegler et al.,

2020). However, the current report focuses

only on crowdfunding services. This means

the report only presents data collected from

platforms which are open to crowd partic-

ipation as both fundraisers (demand) and

funding providers (supply). Accordingly,

online platforms oering fundraising services

outside the traditional nancial systems (e.g.,

digital lenders, digital invoice traders, etc.),

while relying solely on institutional or non-re-

tail private funding (i.e., not open for funding

by the crowd), were excluded.

At the heart of the industry are the rms

providing crowdfunding services, also com-

monly referred to as ‘crowdfunding plat-

forms’ after the technology underlying their

operations. The platforms they operate are

Internet applications linking fundraisers and

prospective fund providers while facilitating

exchanges between them under pre-spec-

ied conditions (Shneor & Flåten, 2015).

Accordingly, all data reported in the current

report have been collected from crowdfund-

ing platforms (hereafter ‘platforms’).

Throughout the report, data is presented in

a comparative manner either with respect

to core underlying models (i.e., equity,

lending, and non-investment models) or

geographical location (i.e., platforms from

Northern, Southern, Eastern, and Western

Europe). Table 1 presents the detailed model

clustering approach. Here, services oering

investments in return-yielding assets are

grouped under an equity cluster. Services

oering investments in return-yielding credit

are grouped under a lending cluster. And ser-

vices oering transactions with no expecta-

tion of nancial returns, such as purchases of

products/services or donations, are grouped

under a non-investment models’ cluster.

24

Table 1. Crowdfunding model clusters

Introduction

Model group Logic Models

Equity Investment in return

yielding assets

• Equity crowdfunding

• Fractional ownership of Real Estate assets

• Fractional ownership of non-Real Estate assets

• Revenue or prot-sharing agreements

• Royalty agreements

• Community shares

• Debt-based securities

• Security Token Oering (STO)

• Initial Coin Oering (ICO)

• Crowdfunded invoice trading

Lending Investments in return

yielding credit

• P2P lending for consumers

• P2P lending for business

• P2P lending for property development

• Mini bonds

• Micronance and P2P Prosocial lending

Non-investment Purchase of goods/

services or donation

• Donation - one time

• Donation – subscription

• Reward-based crowdfunding

Table 2 presents the geographical regional

clustering approach. Most data used in the

report relates to platforms operating from

a European country. However, on several

datapoints we also had access to data about

European operations of non-European based

platforms (e.g., US-based Indiegogo and

Kickstarter, etc.). We incorporated such data

where relevant, but do not include separate

analyses of a non-European region due to

the small number and diverse nature of such

observations.

Table 2. Geographical regional clusters

Model group Countries and Territories1

Eastern Europe Bulgaria, Czech Rep., Hungary, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Ukraine.

Northern Europe Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Sweden,

United Kingdom.

Southern Europe Albania, Bosnia Herzegovina, Cyprus, Croatia, Greece, Italy, Kosovo, Malta,

Montenegro, North Macedonia, San Marino, Serbia, Slovenia, Vatican.

Western Europe Andorra, Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Mona-

co, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland.

1No data was found for crowdfunding activity in Andorra, Kosovo, San Marino, and the Vatican during 2021-2022.

No data was collected for crowdfunding activity in Belarus and Russia

Methodology

25

Data sources. The reported data comes

from entries provided to the European

Crowdfunding Market Survey, which was

distributed to European-based crowd-

funding platforms from April to August

2023. Platforms were identied based on a

combination of listings on the Crowdspace

aggregator database (thecrowdspace.

com), lists provided by research partners,

and desktop research. Each suggested

platform’s website was reviewed to ensure

it met the following inclusion criteria: (1)

oered crowdfunding services (as listed in

table 1); (2) oered such services in at least

one European country; and (3) did so during

either 2021, 2022, or both years. Overall, 592

European-based platforms met the inclusion

criteria and were deemed to represent the full

population of relevant platforms as of March

2023. Since some platforms operate in more

than one country, the 592 unique platforms

also represented 718 platform-country pairs.

Furthermore, when also including the Euro-

pean operations of the two US-based giants

Kickstarter and Indiegogo, the population

increased to 594 unique platforms and 785

platform-country pairs.

Data collection. Data was collected using

a web-based survey using the Lime Survey

software. The survey included ve sections

covering questions related to: (1) platforms’

modes, scope, and scale of operations;

(2) fundraisers’ and borrowers’ proles; (3)

funding providers’ proles; (4) legal aspects

and compliance; and (5) technical develop-

ment and trends. The survey was oered in

multiple languages including English, French,

German, Italian, Spanish, and Czech. To

encourage participation, respondents were

oered a free digital copy of the nal report.

Survey distribution included e-mail distribu-

tion by team members, personal requests

sent to platform ocials via LinkedIn, e-mail

distribution via national industry associa-

tions (including: Bulgarian FinTech Asso-

ciation, Czech and Slovak Crowdfunding

Association, Danish Crowdfunding Asso-

ciation, Dutch SME Financing Association,

French Crowdfunding Association, German

Crowdfunding Association, Latvian FinTech

Association, Lithuanian P2P Lending Associ-

ation, Norwegian Crowdfunding Association,

Romanian FinTech Association, and the UK

Crowdfunding Association), as well as other

individuals with relevant industry contacts.

All invitations for participation involved a

minimum of three reminders, but often many

more. Respondents were also oered the

possibility to conduct the survey as an online

interview, however, nobody has opted for

such an option.

Methodology

26

Scrapped datapoints relating to European

operations of the two US-based giants Kick-

starter and Indiegogo were provided by our

research partner - The Crowdfunding Centre

(thecrowdfundingcenter.com).

Furthermore, data regarding legal standing

and licensing were collected by a combi-

nation of review of relevant legal terms on

respondents’ websites and the information

entered in the survey itself.

Finally, to further anchor the ndings from

the current survey in industry realities, each

of the industry associations listed above was

invited to provide its own short texts review-

ing their understanding of market growth

dynamics, trends, legal requirements, as

well as insights into relevant interesting local

initiatives and experiences. These insights

are either interwoven into the reports’ texts,

or included in special text boxes, separate

from the report text, with clear indications to

their authors and their roles.

Data. The analyses presented in the current

report are based on survey entries from 115

platforms + limited data harvesting of key g-

ures from additional 39 platforms’ websites

+ scrapped data about European operations

from 2 platforms (Kickstarter and Indiegogo),

representing 26% of the total population

identied (592 European-based platforms +

2 US-based platforms). When examining the

platform-country pair level of analysis we

have 168 observations representing 23% of

the total population (718 platform-country

pairs).

Data handling. All data received from

platforms is safely secured under a password

protected system accessible to selected

team members only. All received platform

level information is not published, sold, or

otherwise shared in any way or form with

any entity. All reporting is done at aggregate

levels (e.g., model clusters, regions, etc.)

and no reporting is done at the platform

level. Furthermore, platforms were informed

they can withdraw their entries at any time

prior to report publication by sending a writ-

ten request. No responding platform made

such a request by the time this report was

published.

Quality control. Several actions have been

taken to ensure quality control in the pro-

cess. First, prior to analysis, all data entries

were checked for correctness. Whenever

entries were deemed unclear or suspicious,

platforms were recontacted for verifying and

correcting these concrete datapoints. There

were no instances where such situations

were not resolved through direct contact with

the relevant platform.

Second, each platform was represented by a

single response. In cases where one platform

has provided more than one response, the

more complete response was used as the

single response for that platform.

Third, when reporting results, eorts were

made to indicate the number of respond-

ents the relevant analyses and insights were

based on.

Furthermore, all sections of the report were

subjected to both internal and external peer

reviews. Internal reviews were provided by all

authors of the report. External reviewers in-

cluded independent researchers well-versed

in the subject matter and included: Prof. Na-

talia Maehle from the Western Norway Uni-

versity of Applied Sciences (Norway), Prof.

Ramona Rupeika-Apoga from the University

of Latvia (Latvia), Dr. Joanna Adamska-Mi-

eruszewska and Dr. Urszula Mrzygłód from

the University of Gdansk (Poland). Feedback

provided in both internal and external peer

reviews was addressed and implemented in

the current version of the report.

1. Shneor, R., & Flåten, B.-T. (2015). Opportunities for Entrepreneurial Development and Growth through Online Communities,

Collaboration, and Value Creating and Co-Creating Activities. In H. R. Kaufmann & S. M. R. Shams (Eds.), Entrepreneurial

challenges in the 21st century (pp. 178-199). Palgrave MacMillan.

https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137479761_11

2. Wenzla, K., Odorović, A., Ziegler, T., & Shneor, R. (2020). Crowdfunding in Europe: Between Fragmentation and Harmo-

nisation. In R. Shneor, L. Zhao, & B.-T. Flåten (Eds.), Advances in Crowdfunding: Research and Practice (pp. 373-390).

Palgrave MacMillan.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46309-0_16

3. Ziegler, T., Shneor, R., Garvey, K., Wenzla, K., Yerolemou, N., Zhang, B., & Hao, R. (2018). Expanding Horizons: The 3rd

European Alternative Finance Industry Report. Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance.

https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/faculty-research/centres/alternative-nance/publications/expanding-horizons/

4. Ziegler, T., Shneor, R., Wenzla, K., Odorović, A., Johanson, D., Hao, R., & Ryll, L. (2019). Shifting Paradigms - The 4th

European Alternative Finance Benchmarking Report. Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance.

https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/faculty-research/centres/alternative-nance/publications/shifting-paradigms/

5. Ziegler, T., Shneor, R., Wenzla, K., Suresh, K., Paes, F. F. d. C., Mammadova, L., Wanga, C., Kekre, N., Mutinda, S., Wang,

B. W., López Closs, C., Zhang, B., Forbes, H., Soki, E., Alam, N., & Knaup, C. (2021). The 2nd Global Alternative Finance

Market Benchmarking Report (T. Ziegler, R. Shneor, & K. Wenzla, Eds.). Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance.

https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/faculty-research/centres/alternative-nance/publications/the-2nd-global-alternative--

nance-market-benchmarking-report

6. Ziegler, T., Shneor, R., Wenzla, K., Wang, B. W., Kim, J., Odorović, A., Paes, F. F. d. C., Lopez, C., Johanson, D., Suresh,

K., Mammadova, L., Adams, N., Luo, D., & Zhang, B. (2020). The Global Alternative Finance Market Benchmarking Report

(T. Ziegler & R. Shneor, Eds.). Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance.

https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/faculty-research/centres/alternative-nance/publications/the-global-alternative-nance-mar-

ket-benchmarking-report/

Methodology

References

27

Chapter 1.

Market overview

Chapter 1. Market overview

29

1.1 Number of platforms

As of March 2023, there were 594 crowd-

funding platforms operating in Europe, and

since some platforms operate in multiple

countries there were 785 platform-country

pairs. Table 1.1. and Figure 1.1. present the

number of platforms operating in each coun-

try (not necessarily headquartered in it), as

well as its ranking with respect to the number

of platforms operating in that country as

relative to its population size (per capita).

Table 1.1. Number of platforms operating in country*

Country Number of

platforms

operating in

country

Rank based

on number

of platforms

per capita

Monaco 4 1

Estonia 32 2

Malta 5 3

Latvia 18 4

Iceland 3 5

Lithuania 17 6

Switzerland 49 7

Luxembourg 3 8

Croatia 16 9

Cyprus 5 10

Netherlands 60 11

Montenegro 2 12

Norway 15 13

Austria 24 14

Denmark 13 15

Ireland 10 16

Czechia 17 17

Belgium 18 18

United Kingdom 100 19

Slovakia 8 20

Country Number of

platforms

operating in

country

Rank based

on number

of platforms

per capita

Finland 8 21

France 96 22

Germany 113 23

Sweden 14 24

North Macedonia 2 25

Spain 46 26

Slovenia 2 27

Bulgaria 6 28

Portugal 8 29

Albania 2 30

Bosnia Herzegovina 2 31

Italy 33 32

Greece 5 33

Serbia 3 34

Hungary 3 35

Poland 10 36

Ukraine 9 37

Romania 4 38

Moldova 0 39

*Note: based on platform-country pairs

1Including US-based Kickstarter and Indiegogo.

Chapter 1. Market overview

30

First, the countries served by the largest

number of platforms in absolute terms

include Germany, the UK, and France, with

113, 100, and 96 platforms respectively,

while roughly corresponding with the largest

economies on the continent. Surprisingly,

other large economies such as Spain and

Italy are served by only 46 and 33 plat-

forms respectively. On the other hand, the

Netherlands and Switzerland, with 60 and

49 platforms respectively, represent markets

with relatively many platforms when consid-

ering their market size. Interestingly, though

consistent with earlier studies, the Baltic

countries (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania)

continue to punch well beyond their relative

size taking the 2nd, 4th, and 6th places in

terms of number of platforms per capita,

which is in tune with these markets’ standing

leadership in nancial innovation leapfrog-

ging limited domestic traditional capital mar-

kets. Other top-ranking markets include very

small rich economies, where even a relatively

small number of platforms represents high

levels of market coverage such as Monaco,

Malta, and Iceland ranking 1st, 3rd, and 5th

respectively.

Figure 1.1. Number of platforms operating in country

*Note: Country abbreviations not included in ISO codes: RS = Serbia, KO= Kosovo, and ME = North Macedonia.

Chapter 1. Market overview

31

The survey data indicates that the average

volume per year per platform increased from

16m EUR in 2021 to 19m EUR, an increase

of 17%. In 2021, approximately one third

of all respondents reported a volume of

less than 1m EUR, and another 30% of the

platforms reported volumes above 20m EUR.

In 2022, only 22% of the platforms report-

ed volumes of less than 1m EUR per year,

whereas 36% of platforms reported volumes

of more than 20m EUR per year.

Figure 1.2. Crowdfunding volumes per platform 2021-2022

N = 129

1.2 Volumes per platform

Crowdfunding volumes per platform 2021 - All models Crowdfunding volumes per platform 2022 - All models

The growth in volumes can be attributed

mainly to the increased volumes of lending

platforms. Lending platforms reported an av-

erage volume per year of 19m EUR in 2021,

which increased to 24m EUR in 2022. In con-

trast, equity-based crowdfunding platforms

and non-investment platforms reported

similar volumes in 2021 and 2022. Equi-

ty-platforms on average reported a volume

of 14.9m EUR in 2021, compared to 15.6m

EUR in 2022. Non-investment platforms

(donation- and reward-based crowdfunding

platforms) indicated that the average volume

grew from 9.1m EUR in 2021 to 9.8m EUR

in 2022. The lower average of non-invest-

ment platforms stems from the fact that they

facilitate signicantly lower sum campaigns

when compared to investment models. Ac-

cordingly, close to 48% of all non-investment

platforms cited volumes of less than 1m EUR

in 2022, whereas only 24% of lending-based

crowdfunding platforms and only 34% of eq-

uity-based crowdfunding platforms reported

volumes of less than 1m EUR in the same

period.

Chapter 1. Market overview

32

Figure 1.3. Equity volume ranges 2021 and 2022

Figure 1.4. Lending volume ranges 2021 and 2022

Equity crowdfunding volumes per platform 2021

Crowdfunded lending volumes per platform 2021

Equity crowdfunding volumes per platform 2022

Crowdfunded Lending volumes per platform 2022

Between 2021 and 2022 a smaller share of

equity platforms reported volumes above

20m EUR, shrinking from 31.3% to 20%.

Accordingly, an increasing share of platforms

report mid-range volumes between 5m and

200m EUR, up from 19.6% to 24.5%, as well

as low-range volumes of less than 1m EUR

up from 29.4% to 35.5%.

Between 2021 and 2022 a larger share of

lending platforms reported volumes above

20m EUR, growing from 33.8% to 49.1%.

Accordingly, a smaller share of platforms

reports mid-range volumes between 5m and

20m EUR, decreasing from 23.7% to 13.6%.

Chapter 1. Market overview

33

Figure 1.5. Non-investment volume ranges 2021 and 2022

Non-investment crowdfunding volumes per platform 2021 Non-investment crowdfunding volumes per platform 2022

Non-investment platforms reported a mixed

development between 2021 and 2022. On

the one hand, the overall share of platforms

reporting volumes below 1m EUR declines

from 58.6% to 48.4%. But, on the other

hand, the share of platforms reporting vol-

umes above 20m EUR has also shrunk from

31% in 2021 to 20.4% in 2022. Accordingly,

the share of mid-ranged volume platforms

(between 1m and 10m EUR) has increased

from 10.3% in 2021 to 29.1%.

When exploring platform volumes across

geographies, some important dierences

are noted. 13 platforms from Eastern Europe

reported a 13% increase in average volumes

from 11.3m EUR in 2021 to 12.9m EUR

in 2022. 31 Growth in Western European

platforms reected an increase in average

volume from 15.6m EUR in 2021 to 17m

EUR in 2022, or 9% growth. 21 Southern

European platforms indicated an average

volume of 4.6m EUR in 2021, growing 4% to

4.8m EUR in 2022. And Northern European

platforms indicated a 3% growth in average

volumes, from 26.3m EUR in 2021 to 27m

EUR in 2022.

However, the average 2022 volumes of

Northern European platforms were also

the highest in Europe. Specically, these

volumes were 59% higher than those of

Western European platforms, 125% higher

than those of Eastern European platforms,

and 463% higher than those of Southern Eu-

ropean platforms. The prominence of North-

ern Europe may be partially explained by the

high concentration of investment platforms

versus non-investment platforms (80%),

when compared to other regions (69% in

Eastern and 71% in Southern Europe) as well

as being home to leading platforms primarily

from the UK and the Baltic states.

Chapter 1. Market overview

34

When looking into volume ranges, no dra-

matic shifts were reported by Eastern Euro-

pean platforms between 2021 and 2022.

Figure 1.6. Eastern European platform volume ranges 2021 and 2022

Figure 1.7. Western European platform volume ranges 2021 and 2022

Crowdfunding volumes per platform in Eastern Europe 2021

Crowdfunding volumes per platform in Western Europe 2021

Crowdfunding volumes per platform in Eastern Europe 2022

Crowdfunding volumes per platform in Western Europe 2022

Overall, no dramatic shifts are recorded

between dierent volume ranges reported

by Western European platforms in 2021 and

2022, though the share of platforms reporting

volumes above 50m EUR has increased from

8.7% in 2021 to 14.5% in 2022.

Chapter 1. Market overview

35

Figure 1.8. Northern European platform volume ranges 2021 and 2022

Figure 1.9. Southern European platform volume ranges 2021 and 2022

Crowdfunding volumes per platform in Northern Europe

2021

Crowdfunding volumes per platform in Southern Europe

2021

Crowdfunding volumes per platform in Northern Europe

2022

Crowdfunding volumes per platform in Southern Europe

2022

The share of Northern European platforms

overseeing volumes above 20m EUR has

increased from 51.7% in 2021 to 61.3% in

2022.

Southern European platforms have seen

signicant growth in the share of platforms

reporting volumes between 10m and 20m

EUR, increasing from 9.5% in 2021 to 19%

in 2022. Growth was also recorded in the

range between 1m and 5m EUR, increasing

from 9.5% in 2021 to 28.6% in 2022.

Chapter 1. Market overview

36

1.3 Public knowledge

of crowdfunding

An important aspect for market develop-

ment is the degree to which the public has

sucient knowledge about crowdfunding. To

capture this aspect, platforms were asked

about the extent to which they agree that the

public in the market where they operate has

sucient knowledge about crowdfunding.

7 out of 10 equity platforms indicated that

the public’s knowledge about crowdfund-

ing was insucient. Similarly, 67% of the

lending platforms claimed the same. By

contrast, only one third of the non-invest-

ment platforms argued that knowledge was

insucient, whereas close to 45% argued

that the public had sucient knowledge

about crowdfunding. This indicates that

fundraising through consumption via reward

crowdfunding and donations via donation

crowdfunding may both represent lower risk

concepts with which users are already well

familiar with (i.e., ecommerce and donation

collections). At the same time, understanding

of investment practices and risks associated

with equity and lending may represent less

common practice and require further educa-

tional eorts.

Furthermore, stark dierences can be found

at the regional level. For instance, insucient

public knowledge about crowdfunding was

particularly stressed by 69% of Eastern Eu-

ropean platforms, 61% of Western European

platforms, 57% of Southern, and 51% of

Northern platforms.

N=163

Platforms are counted several times if they operate in dierent jurisdictions and dierent models

Figure 1.10. Share of platforms that agree that public knowledge about crowdfunding is sucient

Chapter 1. Market overview

37

1.4 Crowdfunding market

readiness index (CMRI) 2022

To create a total market overview that

incorporates various indicators of market

readiness a new index score was devised:

The CMRI (Crowdfunding Market Readiness

Index). It is calculated based on relative

country rankings with respect to the fol-

lowing indicators as per 2022, which are

equally weighted in the overall calcula-

tions:

a. Number of platforms operating in country

per capita (regardless of their HQ loca-

tion).

b. Volumes of funding raised in 2022 per

capita.

c. Average number of backers/investors on

platforms with HQ in country per capita.

d. Average number of fundraisers based on

platforms with HQ in country per capita.

e. Share of investment platforms (equity +

lending) that are licensed.

f. Perceived degree of crowdfunding knowl-

edge in the population as reported by

platforms with HQ in the country.

While it was possible to calculate the rst

indicator for 39 countries, based on our

list of 594 platforms. It was only possible

to calculate the remaining indicators for

13 countries, as these were dependent on

responses to our survey. Furthermore, to limit

misrepresentation, we only include countries

where relevant data was available from at

least 3 dierent platforms with headquarters

in the country indicated.

Table 1.2. presents the CMRI scores and

ranking. Each column represents each coun-

try’s rank with respect to a relevant indicator.

The CMRI score represents the average of

the six indicators’ ranks for each country.

The CMRI represents the country’s overall

ranking.

Overall, the Netherlands emerges as the top

scoring market with top rankings on all indi-

cators, and particularly in terms of volumes

per capita, average number of backers on

platform per capita, and public knowledge

of crowdfunding. It is followed by Norway

that while excelling at legal compliance,

volumes per capita, and average number of

backers on platform per capita, still indicates

relatively lower levels of public knowledge

about crowdfunding. Third comes Den-

mark excelling at crowd engagement with

top rankings on both number of backers

and fundraisers per capita, while similar to

Norway still indicating relatively low levels of

public knowledge about crowdfunding.

Among larger economies, the UK repre-

Chapter 1. Market overview

38

Table 1.2. CMRI scores and rankings

Country Rank

based on

number of

platforms

operating

in country

per capita

Rank

based on

2022 vol-

umes per

capita

Rank

based on

average

number of

backers

per plat-

form per

capita

Rank

based on

average of

number of

fundrais-

ers per

platform

per capita

Rank

based on

share of

Invest-

ment plat-

forms with

license

Rank

based on

perceived

level of the

public’s

knowledge

of crowd-

funding

CMRI

Score

CMRI

Rank

Netherlands 11 1 2 4 4 3 4.17 1

Norway 13 2 3 5 1 8 5.33 2

Denmark 15 4 1 2 4 11 6.17 3

United

Kingdom 19 5 8 71 1 6.83 4

Austria 14 8 6 10 1 4 7.17 5

France 22 3 5 6 3 5 7.33 6

Czech

Republic 17 6 9 8 72 8.17 7

Belgium 18 9 71 5 12 8.67 8

Germany 23 711 11 2 710.17 9

Romania 38 11 4 3 6 5 11.17 10

Spain 26 10 12 9 1 9 11.17 11

Italy 32 13 10 12 5 6 13.00 12

Poland 36 12 13 13 710 15.17 13

sents a leading market with top rankings on

licensing, public knowledge, and volumes

per capita. It is closely followed by France

with even higher volumes per capita, but with

slightly lower public knowledge of crowd-

funding, and slightly lower engagement of

the crowd in terms of number of backers and

fundraisers per capita.

Chapter 1. Market overview

1.5 Markets in focus:

insights from the eld

In France, 2022 was a record year for crowd-

funding. 2,355 million euros were raised on

platforms, up +25% in 2021. Since 2015, g-

ures have multiplied by 14, with a cumulative

total of over 7 billion euros, all models com-

bined (donation and reward, loan, equity).

Notably, the signicant growth in real estate

crowdfunding accounted for 2/3 of total

funds raised (+40.2%). However, in 2023, the

economic crisis and the diculties encoun-

tered by the real estate sector meant that

growth slowed, as did the volume of funds

raised.

Overall, the number of market participants is

likely to remain stable, as the crowdfunding

sector in France has been established for

some time. The ecosystem is in a phase

of stabilization and consolidation, i.e. it is

moving away from the logic of increasing

volumes and increasing entrants. It is now

focusing on institutionalizing and strengthen-

ing its operations, as well as on possible av-

enues of development with external players.

Indeed, the French crowdfunding ecosys-

tem is increasingly interacting with external

players and becoming increasingly interme-

diated. Here, the diversication of fund-rais-

ing mechanisms, between family oces,

investment funds, asset management com-

panies, etc., is contributing signicantly to

the upward trend in loans and investments.

And while the direct approach continues to

dominate (66% of inows), channels such

as asset management companies (15%) and

investment funds (8%) are gaining ground.

These results illustrate that crowdfunding

has established itself as a credible savings

solution, and that the French are becoming

increasingly enthusiastic about this type of

nancing, which is proving resilient in a tense

economic climate.

Besides, this ecosystem has enjoyed strong

support from the public authorities for the

past 10 years (notably with the creation of

a national framework in 2014). This trend

is unchanged today, and is combined with

39

Signs of Market Maturation

France:

By Florence de Maupeou - Executive Director,

French Crowdfunding Association

(FPF Financement Participatif France)

Chapter 1. Market overview

The German Crowdfunding Market is going

to grow, because we see a lot of demand

from companies seeking access to nance.

The investors’ appetite continues to be very

strong, despite the many challenges which

the German economy is faced with in 2023.

In Germany, there are several Crowdfunding

regimes: 1) The ECSP regime; 2) The German

Crowdfunding exemption for Investment

Assets; and 3) The German Crowdfunding

exemption for Securities between 5m and

8m EUR. We expect that by the end of 2023,

we will have 6 ECSP platforms and at least

20 platforms which operate in the German

crowdfunding exemption. We also expect

that platforms under the ECSP-Regime from

outside of Germany will continue to explore

the German market. However, we also ex-

pect several platforms to operate within the

German Crowdfunding exemption.

Digital Investment platforms have been

pioneers of digital technology to make it

easier, more reliable, and more ecient to

connect companies and investors. Today,

most crowdfunding platforms in Germany

are using the term Digital Invest Platform

(or Impact Investing Platform). Therefore,

we will re-brand our association as Digital

Invest Germany, thereby reaching out to new

stakeholders.

Looking to the future, we expect that

platforms are going to make greater use of

digital technologies such as tokenization,

machine learning, and digital communication

technologies.

Maintaining growth and legal plurality

Germany:

By Uli Fricke, President of the Board,

German Crowdfunding Association

(Bundesverband Crowdfunding eV)

40

the existence of a reactive, proactive, and

reliable regulator. Furthermore, there is also

political support, with many Members of Par-

liament encouraging the introduction of tax

measures to encourage investment in SMEs

and start-ups.

Chapter 1. Market overview

Overall market volumes have been hit by

the combination of economic factors, the

tightening of monetary policy and regulatory

changes. Nevertheless, the UK industry is

optimistic that as these obstacles recede

there is still strong market demand for private

market investments in both equity and debt.

In terms of regulation, 2023 has seen

unprecedented regulatory changes for

investment-based crowdfunding and P2P

Lending which has had signicant inuence

on the growth and trends in the sector. The

second phase of the implementation of the

“High Risk Investment” rules, changes to

the guidance regarding secondary markets,

and the creation of a new permission for

nancial promotion approval had a negative

impact on growth in customers and has also

been responsible for several exits from the

retail investment sector by leading and minor

players.

On a more positive note, the UK government

continues to be supportive of ntech overall

and the creation of new legislation for “Public

Oer Platforms” promises a new genera-

tion of crowdfunding development with a

focus on larger, more established “scale up”

companies. The UK is still seen as a hub for

both talent and nance for those looking to

build new ntech propositions, but it should

be careful not to rest on its laurels, especially

regarding the developments in digital assets

and the application of AI.

Looking to Europe, some of the leading UK

players have also extended their oerings to

EU based companies and investors, which

is pleasing to see in a post-Brexit regulatory

environment.

Finally, it is fair to say that the focus of the

UK ntech market has moved away from

“alternative nance” and is largely focused

on the application of disruptive blockchain

and AI technologies. However, there is still a

recognition at both government and regula-

tory levels of the importance of innovation in

nance for private companies as a signi-

cant driver of growth and importantly also a

“green” economy.

Weathering a mix of economic, regulatory,

and technological changes

United Kingdom:

By Bruce Davis, Chair and Director

UK Crowdfunding Association

41

Chapter 2.

Platforms

Chapter 2. Platforms

43

2.1 Years in business

The current chapter focuses on the plat-

forms and their characteristics. Hence, rst,

it is helpful to analyze patterns of platform

creation in Europe for assessing the market’s

maturity level. The analysis is based on

319 data entries, whereas some platforms

operating more than one model are counted

in each model group they belong to. The

oldest platforms are debt-based dating from

20 years ago, while 15 platforms (3 equity

and 12 debt) are only 1 year old. The largest

number of platforms are 8 and 9 years in

business, which corresponds with the time

when the crowdfunding market entered its

growth stage. The gradually falling number

of platforms in the years that follow suggests

a gradual maturation of the industry. Overall,

the average number of years in business is

7.6 for equity, 6.9 for lending, and 8.9 for

non-investment models. This pattern may

correspond with regulatory evolution, where

non-investment platforms are those that

have entered unregulated markets early due

to lower regulatory thresholds they needed

to meet. However, investment platforms have

entered the market later and in parallel to the

development of national bespoke regimes,

implementation of regulatory sandbox

processes, or under other temporary special

permissions from regulators.

Figure 2.1. Number of platforms by years in business by model

Chapter 2. Platforms

44

Figure 2.2. Volumes of funding raised by platforms by number of years in business

The relationship between the number of

years in business and volumes generated in

2022 suggests that more mature platforms

attract higher volumes on average. However,

the coecient of determination (R2) is small

(0.018), suggesting that younger platforms

can compete with more mature ones based

on other characteristics. This may also sug-

gest that early mover advantages for older

platforms are limited, and that younger rms

seem to enjoy late mover advantages, where

older rms may have carried most of the

burden of market education and legitimacy

building that young rms now more readily

enjoy.

Chapter 2. Platforms

45

2.2 International scope

Respondents provided insights on inter-

national aspects of their business. The

analysis is based on 118 and 127 responses

for 2021 and 2022, respectively. Platforms

predominantly operated in one country as

indicated by 80.5% of platforms in 2021,

and 82.6% of platforms in 2022. Such local

anchoring may be explained by a combina-

tion of limited resources at the disposal of

these relatively young rms, viewing their

superior understanding of local markets as a

source of competitive advantage in domestic

markets, as well as the legal complexities of

cross-border operations prior to the harmoni-

zation of regulations in Europe (i.e., the ECSP

regime).

Among those operating in two countries,

6 operated an equity model, 7 operated a

lending model, and only 1 operated a non-in-

vestment model. 2 equity and 3 lending

platforms report operating in three countries

in 2021. A single lending platform had a

presence in four countries, while 1 equity and

2 lending platforms indicated spreading their

operations across ve dierent countries in

the same year. This seems to suggest that

investment-oriented platforms are more

likely to internationalize than those oering

non-investment models. Such trend seems

to correspond with higher income character-

izing larger fundraising rounds in investment

campaigns, as well as the need to reach

wider pools of relatively richer prospective

investors.

Regardless, the internationalization of

crowdfunding platforms has not changed

much in 2022, with 105 platforms operating

in a single country against 23 platforms with

an international operation. Here, it remains to

be seen whether new harmonized regulations

(such as the ECSP regime) will enable greater

international scope of business for European

platforms, or whether other market barriers

will continue to hinder such cross-border

scaling.

Chapter 2. Platforms

46

Figure 2.3. Number of platforms by model and the number of countries in which they operate 2021-2022

When examining whether platforms with

headquarters in certain regions are more

international than others, we nd that in 2021

international outreach is the most common

among platforms with headquarters in

Eastern Europe with 38.4% reporting oper-

ations in two or more countries, and 30.7%

reporting the same in 2022. This may be

explained by a greater need to rely on foreign

reach due to a combination of relatively less

developed domestic capital markets, which

are populated by publics with lower levels of

social trust and higher levels of uncertainty

avoidance. This is followed by Northern Eu-

rope and Western Europe, both with 24% of

platforms reporting operations in two or more

countries. Finally, only 15.3% of platforms

headquartered in Southern Europe report

operations in more than one country.

A related question is to what extent do

platforms that operate in certain regions

are headquartered in dierent regions. The

results based on 126 responses for 2021

and 124 responses for 2022 indicate that

platforms are predominantly incorporated in

the region where they operate. Data for 2021

shows that all platforms operating in Eastern

Number of countries of operation 2021

Number of countries of operation by HQ region 2021

Number of countries of operation 2022

Number of countries of operation by HQ region 2022

Figure 2.4. Number of platforms by HQ region and the number of countries in which they operate 2021-2022

Chapter 2. Platforms

47

Europe are from this region. The greatest

share of platforms with headquarters outside

the region were found to operate in Southern

Europe (17%), followed by those operating in

Western Europe (12%) and Northern Europe

(10%). Data for 2022 captures a slight

decrease in the number of platforms from

outside the region operating in both Western

(11%) and Northern Europe (7%).

Number of platforms by region and HQ location 2021 Number of platforms by region and HQ location 2022

Figure 2.5. Number of platforms by region and HQ locations 2021-2022

To further capture the scope of interna-

tional operations, platforms also provided

information about the shares of volumes that

originate from domestic versus internation-

al ows. Overall, based on data from 126

platforms, the results suggest that despite

rising eorts from policymakers to encourage

cross-border ows, most funds still originate

from domestic backers and investors, inde-

pendently of the crowdfunding model. As

suggested above, most platforms may have

limited resources and knowledge to support

foreign operations, while they have superior

knowledge of domestic markets. Further-

more, prospective backers may nd it easier

to tap into local networks than international

ones when fundraising, as local contacts

may, again, have superior understanding of

local market conditions, needs, opportuni-

ties, and be better able to interpret informa-

tional nuances.

Nevertheless, there are notable dierences

in the portion of international ows between

models. Data for 2021 shows that inter-

national ows account for about 17.4%

of the total ows in lending and 2.3% in

equity-based crowdfunding, respectively.

International ows into non-investment mod-

els appear to be negligible. Data for 2022

shows an increase in the portion of interna-

tional ows into equity-based crowdfunding

reaching 5.4%. In contrast, the portion of

international funds owing into lending

crowdfunding dropped to 12%.

Chapter 2. Platforms

48

Figure 2.6. Share of volumes raised from domestic vs. international ows by model 2021-2022

Figure 2.7. Share of volumes raised from domestic vs. international ows by region 2021-2022

Finally, when examining the share of do-

mestic versus international ows by region,

interesting dierences emerge. Northern

Europe is the region that beneted the most

from international ows, which accounted for

32.6% of total volumes, while international

volumes amounted to 6.2% and 2.1% of to-

tal volumes in Eastern and Western Europe,

respectively. International ows in Southern

Europe were negligible.

Data for 2022 captures some dierences

in comparison with the previous year. The

portion of international funds owing into

Northern Europe decreased to 24.9% of total

funds. In contrast, Eastern Europe experi-

enced a relative increase in the portion of

funds stemming from international backers,

amounting to 18.1%. No sizable dierenc-

es when compared to 2021 were noted

in crowdfunding markets in Western and

Southern Europe, which remain driven by

domestic ows.

Chapter 2. Platforms

49

2.3 Models and model

combinations

Figure 2.8. Number of platforms by number of models

they oer

Figure 2.9. Number of platforms oering one versus

multiple models by region

While some platforms oer crowdfunding

services with respect to a single model, oth-

ers oer multiple models. Among respond-

ents within the Equity cluster (49 platforms),

the most common model used is equity

crowdfunding (48 platforms) followed by

debt-based securities (27 platforms). Within

the Lending cluster (58 platforms), the most

common model used is P2P business lend-

ing (45 platforms) followed by P2P property

lending (25 platforms). In the Non-Investment

cluster (31 platforms), the most common

model used is reward crowdfunding (21 plat-

forms) followed by donation crowdfunding

(15 platforms).

Some crowdfunding models share several

common characteristics allowing platforms

to combine them and oer their investors a

choice between dierent instruments. How-

ever, 60% of respondents (69 out of 115 sur-

vey respondents) indicate that their platform

operates a single model. 25% of platforms

combine 2 models, 10% of platforms oper-

ate 3 models, whereas 4% of platforms oer

4 models under one roof. Only 1 platform

indicates operating 5 dierent models.

When looking into regional dispersion, model

combinations are least frequent in Southern

and Western Europe with 27% and 36% of

platforms respectively, reporting operating

more than one model. In Eastern and North-

ern Europe, single model platforms represent

close to half of all platforms.

Presenting relative frequencies of model

combinations, Table 2.1. shows the share of

Chapter 2. Platforms

50

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Total

A - Equity

crowdfunding - 6.3% 2.1% 4.2% 0.0% 0.0% 14.6% 0.0% 14.6% 4.2% 6.3% 2.1% 6.3% 0.0% 8.3% 4.2% 48

B - Fractional

ownership of

Real Estate

assets

42.9% -14.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 28.6% 0.0% 42.9% 14.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7

C - Fractional

ownership

of non-Real

Estate assets

100.0% 100.0% - 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1

D - Revenue or

prot-sharing

agreements

66.7% 0.0% 0.0% - 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 33.3% 33.3% 0.0% 66.7% 0.0% 3

E - Royalty

payments 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% - 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1

F - Community

shares 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% - 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1

G - Debt-

based secu-

rities

25.9% 7.4% 3.7% 0.0% 0.0% 3.7% - 0.0% 11.1% 3.7% 7.4% 0.0% 7.4% 0.0% 0.0% 3.7% 27

H - P2P

lending for

consumers

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% - 31.3% 25.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 16

I - P2P lending

for business 15.6% 6.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.7% 11.% - 24.4% 4.4% 0.0% 2.2% 0.0% 4.4% 4.4% 45

J - P2P lending

for property

development

8.0% 4.0% 0.0% 4.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.0% 16.0% 44.0% -0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25

K - Mini-bonds 60.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 0.0% 40.0% 0.0% -0.0% 20.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 5

L - Micro-

nance and

P2P Prosocial

lending

50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 2

M - Donation -

one time 20.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.7% 0.0% 0.0% 13.3% 0.0% 6.7% 0.0% 6.7% 6.7% -20.0% 26.7% 0.0% 15

N - Donation -

subscription 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 75.0% -50.0% 0.0% 4

O - Re-

ward-based

crowdfunding

19.0% 0.0% 0.0% 9.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 9.5% 0.0% 0.0% 4.8% 19.0% 9.5% -0.0% 21

P - Security

Token Oering

(STO)

50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 25.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -4

Table 2.1. Number of platforms oering combination of models

platforms in each model that oer combina-

tion with a dierent model.

Chapter 2. Platforms

51

First, within model clusters results indicate

that in the equity cluster, revenue sharing is

often combined with equity crowdfunding.

In the lending cluster, P2P business and

property lending are often combined. And

in the non-investment cluster, one-time and

subscription-based donations are often

combined.

Second, when examining combinations

across clusters, most combinations involve

mixes of equity and lending models. Here,

one can identify a tendency where 43% of

platforms oering fractional ownership of

real estate assets to also oer P2P business

lending. 50% of platforms oering security

tokens also engage in P2P business lending.

And 60% of platforms oering minibonds

also engage in equity crowdfunding.

Chapter 2. Platforms

52

2.4 Interest and default rates

Specic to lending models are the concerns

with the interest rates charged and the de-

fault rates observed in the alternative credit

sphere. Here, based on 53 survey responses

for 2022, results suggest that P2P lending

for consumers generates the highest average

interest rate of 11.11%, accompanied by a

moderate average default rate of 1.5%. In

contrast, and in line with their social aims,

platforms operating micronance and P2P

prosocial lending models appear to generate

the lowest returns among all debt models

with an average interest rate of 4%, as well

as a default rate of 4%.

Lending models focusing exclusively on

businesses oer comparable interest rates.

The highest average interest rate is reported

by P2P property lending platforms (8.16%),

followed by platforms intermediating mini

bonds (7.76%), and P2P business lending

platforms (7.41%). The average default rate

is also comparable between these platforms,

with P2P business and property lending

reporting 3.63% and 3.23% defaults, re-

spectively. Yet, platforms intermediating mini

bonds report a much lower average default

rate amounting to only 0.8%.

Figure 2.10. Average interest and default rates in European crowdlending platforms

Chapter 2. Platforms

53

2.5 Licensing

48 equity, 58 lending, and 31 non-investment

platforms have reported on their licensing

status. The data captures a sharp contrast

between investment and non-investment

platforms. In line with the risks associated

with each model, results indicate that while a

large majority of equity (81.6%) and lending

(65.5%) platforms are licensed, this holds for

only 27.6% of non-investment platforms.

Table 2.2. Platform licensing status by region and model1

Region Model group

Licensing Status

Percent licensed

No Yes Total

East Equity 2 2 4 50.00%

Lending 6 2 8 25.00%

Non-investment 3 1 4 25.00%

Total 9 4 13 30.77%

West Equity 7 31 38 81.58%

Lending 11 20 31 64.52%

Non-investment 7 8 15 53.33%

Total 18 49 67 73.13%

North Equity 3 9 12 75.00%

Lending 3 22 25 88.00%

Non-investment 7 1 8 12.50%

Total 11 29 40 72.50%

South Equity 2 8 10 80.00%

Lending 4 6 10 60.00%

Non-investment 6 6 0.00%

Total 10 11 21 52.38%

Total Equity 9 40 49 81.63%

Total Lending 20 38 58 65.51%

Total Non-investment 21 8 29 27.58%

1PIatforms may be counted more than once when operating more than one model (across clusters).

Chapter 2. Platforms

54

Regional disparities in licensing are pro-

nounced. The percentage of licensed

platforms is the smallest in Eastern Europe

(30.8%), followed by Southern Europe

(52.4%). While the situation in Eastern Eu-

rope can be explained by younger platforms

and late regulatory work, when compared to

other regions, the situation in Southern Eu-

rope is explained by a relatively high share of

platforms operating non-investment models

that often do not require special licenses.

This stands in sharp contrast to Western and

Northern Europe, where 73.1% and 72.5% of

all platforms are licensed, respectively. When

looking into model groups, Eastern Europe

stands out with a low percentage of licensed

platforms among investment models. For

instance, only 25% of lending platforms

are licensed. In contrast, Southern Europe

is characterized by a high percentage of li-

censed platforms among investment models

(80% of equity and 60% of lending platforms

are licensed). Yet, none of the non-invest-

ment platforms captured in the sample are

licensed in this region.

Since investor protection safeguards play a

more important role in investment models

than in non-investment models, we exam-

ine dierences in terms of average vol-

umes raised by licensed versus unlicensed

platforms. The general trends indicate that

licensed platforms oversee substantially

higher volumes than unlicensed platforms.

• In the Equity cluster, licensed platforms

oversaw an average of 49m EUR and

51m EUR in 2021 and 2022 respective-

ly, while unlicensed ones oversaw an

average of 6.4m EUR and 7.4m EUR

respectively in the same years.

• In the Lending cluster, while dierences

persist, they are somewhat smaller, most

likely due to the clustering of consumer

and business loans together. Here, while

regulation of the latter is now clearer, reg-

ulation of the former remains elusive and

inconsistent across countries. Overall,

licensed platforms oversaw an average of

25.8m EUR and 32.5m EUR in 2021 and

2022 respectively, while unlicensed ones

oversaw an average of 18m EUR and

24m EUR respectively in the same years.

2.5.1 Volume differences in licensed versus

non-licensed investment platforms

Chapter 2. Platforms

55

All licensed platforms were further asked to

indicate the specic license that they hold or

that they held before applying for the license

under the European Crowdfunding Service

Provider Regulation (ECSP)2. Answers from

124 responses were cross-checked and

complemented with desk-based research.

The authors then categorized licenses into

one of the following types:

1. Unknown license type

2. National license from a non-nancial

regulatory authority

3. Bespoke national crowdfunding license

4. National traditional nancial institution

license (e.g., payment institution, MiFID

license3).

It is worth noting that licenses used by tradi-

tional nancial institutions can also be used

by crowdfunding platforms. Such situations

often occur due to three dierent reasons.

First, when platforms wish to operate legally

and in a regulated way in countries where no

crowdfunding-specic regulation has existed

thus far. Second, when platforms opt-in for

a traditional nancial institution license to

achieve market legitimacy and trust by sign-

aling commitment to higher investor protec-

2.5.2 Types of licenses used by platforms

Figure 2.11. Number of platforms by type of license

2The Regulation on European Crowdfunding Service Providers (ECSP) for business ((EU) 2020/1503).

3A license under the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the

Council of 15 May 2014 on markets in nancial instruments and amending Directive 2002/92/EC and Directive 2011/61/EU

Chapter 2. Platforms

56

When looking into all crowdfunding models

together, the greatest number of platforms

remain unlicensed (42), however many of

these represent non-investment platforms

(see further information in analysis below by

model) that do not require special licensing in

most countries. This is followed by platforms

holding a license of a traditional nancial

institution (25), and platforms with a bespoke

national crowdfunding license (22). 15 plat-

forms obtained a license from a non-nancial

authority, while 20 licensed platforms did not

report the details of their licensing status.

Among equity platforms (based on informa-

tion from 52 platforms), it appears that there

is not a single dominant license type being

used. Here, 81.1% report operating under

one form of license or another, while 18.9%

remain unlicensed. The most frequently li-

cense type used, in relative terms, is the one

Figure 2.12.1 Share of equity platforms by license type

Figure 2.12.2 Share of lending platforms by license type

relating to bespoke national crowdfunding

license (25%).

Licensing disparity is also observed among

lending platforms (based on information from

64 platforms), with the greatest portion of

platforms being unlicensed (31.3%). Here,

part of the challenge remains the unclear

licensing requirements for operating P2P

consumer lending platforms in various

jurisdictions. Nevertheless, one-fourth of all

lending platforms hold a traditional nancial

institution license. Moreover, a bespoke

crowdfunding license is also frequently re-

ported by lending platforms (17.2%), where-

as only 6.3% of platforms have a license

from a non-nancial authority.

Non-investment models (based on infor-

mation from 31 platforms) remain mostly

unsupervised by national authorities (72.4%).

tion safeguards. Finally, an existing nancial

intermediary can decide to oer crowdfund-

ing services, alone or in partnership with a

company operating a crowdfunding platform

to whom it extends its license.

Chapter 2. Platforms

57

Among platforms that fall under regulatory

oversight, 10.3% of platforms hold a tradi-

tional nancial institution license, whereas

the same portion of platforms (10.3%)

indicate having either a bespoke crowdfund-

ing license or a license from a non-nancial

regulator. Here, some of the platforms op-

erating under licenses may be aliated with

institutions oering broader scopes of nan-

cial services (such as banks) that go beyond

non-investment crowdfunding models.

Figure 2.12.3 Share of non-investment platforms by

license type

To assess the perceived need for regulation,

platforms were asked whether the services

they oer should be regulated under a ded-

icated license. Unsurprisingly, most equity-

and lending-based crowdfunding platforms,

which already operate with a license, also

think that platforms oering such services

should be licensed. 70% of equity-plat-

forms and lending-based platforms which

are not licensed yet report that this activity

should become licensed. Two thirds of re-

ward-based crowdfunding platforms do not

see a need for licensing.

Platforms were also asked to indicate the

extent to which they perceive the current

regulation as adequate, ranging from fully

disagree (1) to fully agree (7). Responses

are collected for 47 equity, 41 lending, and

5 non-investment platforms. In all three

model groups, most respondents somewhat

agree, agree, or fully agree that regulation is

adequate. In contrast, 27% of equity, 32%

of lending, and 40% of non-investment plat-

forms are rather critical of current regulation,

expressing that they somewhat disagree,

disagree, or fully disagree with the statement

that the regulation is adequate. Relative high-

er discontent among lending platforms may

be explained by a lack of regulatory clarity

with respect to P2P consumer lending, as

well as with limitations on platforms’ abilities

to implement automatic agents for investing

in portfolios rather than single loans.

To get a deeper understanding of the desired

direction of a regulatory change, platforms

were asked whether they would prefer less

2.5.3 Perceived regulatory needs and adequacy

Chapter 2. Platforms

58

Figure 2.13. Perceived regulatory adequacy by platforms per model (share of respondents)

stringent regulations. Results presented here

are based on responses from 47 equity, 41

lending, and 3 non-investment platforms.

Interestingly, there is no wide agreement on

how stringent regulation should be. 39%

of equity and lending platforms somewhat

agree, agree, or fully agree with the state-

ment that regulation should be less demand-

ing or stringent. However, at the same time,

34% of equity and lending platforms do not

agree with the statement, and suggest regu-

lation is either suciently stringent or should

be even more stringent.

Chapter 2. Platforms

59

Figure 2.14. Perceived need for regulation to be less stringent per model (share of respondents)

Some of these inconsistencies may be a

result of the dierent types of licenses being

used by dierent platforms. Accordingly,

when looking into perceived regulation

adequacy per license type (based on 91

responses), notable dierences emerge.

First, the greatest satisfaction exists among

platforms that hold a license from a non--

nancial authority, with 69% of respondents at

least somewhat agreeing with the statement

that the regulation is adequate. Regulation

is also mostly seen as adequate among

platforms holding a bespoke crowdfunding

license, as reported by 53% of respondents

in this group. In contrast, the lowest level

of satisfaction is captured among platforms

holding a license of a traditional nancial

institution. Here, 48% of platforms within this

group somewhat disagree, disagree, or fully

disagree that the regulation is adequate.

Chapter 2. Platforms

60

Figure 2.15. Perceived regulation adequacy per license type (share of respondents)

At the time when the data was collected in

the rst half of 2023, ECSP requirements

were not yet applicable to platforms with

prior authorization under national rules.

However, these platforms were aware of this

regulatory development and had to receive

authorization under ECSP before the 10th of

November 2023, if they intended to continue

their operations after this date (so-called

ECSP transition period)4. However, this

only applies to platforms whose business

model falls within the scope of the ECSP5.

In contrast, new platforms established after

the ECSP entered into force (10 November

2021), had to apply directly for an ECSP

license to begin oering their services.

Results indicate that 48% of all equity-based

crowdfunding platforms had not yet applied

for an ECSP license. Similarly, 56% of lend-

ing-based crowdfunding platforms had not

yet applied for an ECSP license. France was

the leading jurisdiction where applications

had been submitted (8 platforms), followed

2.5.4 Status of ECSP licensing

4It was possible for platforms already holding a national license to obtain authorization under ECSP before the expiration of the

transition period. Only a few platforms have done so ahead of deadline.

5Platforms operating P2P consumer lending, some hybrid instruments (e.g., prot-participating loans), or shares in private

limited liability companies in some counties (depending on the national rules dening the scope of admitted instruments for

crowdfunding purposes), will fall outside the scope of ECSP.

Chapter 2. Platforms

61

When examining attitudes towards current

ECSP provisions, most respondents view

four main proposed changes favorably. First,

58% of respondents at least somewhat

agree with a proposed inclusion of con-

sumer credit lending into the scope of the

ECSP, while only 17% disagree with such

action. Second, 62% of respondents at least

somewhat agree with a proposed increase

of the 5m EUR limit for oerings under the

ECSP, while 17% did not see a need for such

a change. Third, 60% of respondents at least

somewhat agree with a proposed increase of

the 1000 EUR limit on individual investments,

while 19% disagreed with such proposal. Fi-

nally, 61% of respondents agree that imple-

menting investor knowledge qualications is

better than setting a xed amount threshold,

whereas only 5% of respondents disagreed

with such an approach.

The greatest disagreement was recorded

with respect to potential stricter AML/CTF

requirements, with 31% of platforms disa-

greeing to some extent with such proposal.

by the Netherlands (5 platforms). Germany,

Italy, and Spain each had received 4 ECSP

applications.

Furthermore, the survey asked whether plat-

forms had already received an ECSP-license

or are planning to apply for an ECSP license

in the future. Here, 20.6% of all equity- and

lending-based platforms would operate out-

side the scope of the ECSP regime – stating

that they neither have been approved al-

ready, nor have applied or intended to apply

for the ECSP license in the future.

It is further helpful to examine the ECSP

status by distinguishing between licensed

and unlicensed platforms at the time of

responding to the survey. Among 91 plat-

forms operating equity- or lending-based

crowdfunding model, 74% are licensed, and

26% are unlicensed. However, 14.1% of all

investment platforms currently hold a license

but neither applied nor intend to apply for the

ECSP authorization. Thus, these platforms

would either continue operating under na-

tional rules or cease their operations after the

10th of November 2023 (if their model falls

under the scope of the ECSP).

6,5% of all investment platforms are unli-

censed and are planning to stay outside of

the ECSP regime. These platforms neither

applied for nor intend to apply for the ECSP

authorization. This means that, roughly, every

fourth currently unlicensed platform does not

plan to subject itself to the ECSP.

2.5.5 Attitudes towards ECSP

Chapter 2. Platforms

62

Other proposals for making disclosure

requirements even simpler were mostly

viewed neutrally by respondents, with 66%

of respondents being either neutral or having

weak opinions about such a change.

Finally, 64% of respondents hold a neutral

opinion about the extent to which the ECSP

makes it easier to passport the license to

other European countries. This result likely

stems from the limited experience of plat-

forms with the license, with most platforms

having not yet received the ECSP authori-

zation.

Figure 2.16. Attitudes towards ESCP

Chapter 2. Platforms

63

2.6 Relations with traditional

nance

Crowdfunding platforms often benet

from diverse types of collaborations with

traditional nancial institutions. As reported

by 49 equity, 58 lending, and 31 non-invest-

ment platforms, collaborative practices exist

across all three model types, although they

are not equally widespread. 68.6% of equity,

61.8% of lending, and 43.2% of non-invest-

ment platforms report at least one type of

relationship with traditional nancial institu-

tions. Equity-based platforms most com-

monly benet from a lead exchange (25.7%),

followed by having a strategic partnership

(20%). Other types of collaborations, such as

being fully or partially owned by a traditional

nancial institution, or having a promotional

partnership are reported by 10% or less of

platforms. Similarly, among lending-based

platforms, the most common type of relation-

ship is having a strategic partnership (25%),

followed by a lead exchange (17.1%). As in

the case of equity-based platforms, other

partnership types each account for less than

10%. Non-investment platforms commonly

partner with traditional nancial institutions

in relation to promotional (17.1%) and stra-

tegic matters (14.3%). Surprisingly, 11.4%

of non-investment platforms are also fully

owned by a traditional nancial institution,

thus, more frequently than investment-based

platforms. Some of these are related to

banks’ wider programs within corporate

social responsibility and local community

support.

Figure 2.16.1. Share of equity platforms by collaboration type with traditional nance

Chapter 2. Platforms

64

Figure 2.16.2. Share of lending platforms by collaboration type with traditional nance

Figure 2.16.3. Share of non-investment platforms by collaboration type with traditional nance

When analyzing dierent types of collabora-

tions, it is useful to put them into the context

of licensing. Namely, licensing can aect

platforms’ incentives to partner with tradi-

tional nancial institutions. Platforms that

are partially owned by a traditional nancial

institution are all either licensed (50%) or

applied for the ECSP license (50%). Similarly,

platforms that are fully owned by a traditional

nancial institution, are either licensed (with

or without an intention to obtain the ECSP

license) or represent new unlicensed plat-

forms that applied for the ECSP license.

Unlicensed institutions, that do not intend

to obtain the ECSP license, usually collab-

orate with the traditional nancial sector for

Chapter 2. Platforms

65

strategic or promotional purposes, or they

exchange leads.

Figure 2.17. Collaboration with traditional nance by licensing status of platforms

The type of collaboration with the tradi-

tional nancial sector can also depend on

the platform size. Platforms that fall within

small volume ranges (below 1m) predomi-

nantly have no established relations with the

traditional sector. When they do, it is usually

for strategic purposes. Platforms that fall

within intermediate volume ranges (between

10m and 50m) have more frequent relations

with traditional nancial institutions, some of

which are also based on ownership. Most of

the biggest platforms, intermediating above

50m, collaborate with the traditional sector.

It is also common for these platforms to be

partially or fully owned by a traditional nan-

cial institution.

Chapter 2. Platforms

66

Figure 2.18. Collaboration with traditional nance by volumes raised by platforms

Chapter 2. Platforms

67

2.7 Mergers and acquisitions

As the industry matures, the future is likely to

bring a greater degree of consolidation in the

European crowdfunding market. This nds

support in responses from 115 platforms

which reported on previous mergers and

acquisitions (M&A), as well as their plans for

the coming years. Among the 49 surveyed

equity platforms, only 12% indicate that they

were involved in an M&A in the past, while

42% state that they expect to acquire, be

acquired, or merge with another platform in

the future. Likewise, among 58 lending plat-

forms in the sample, 15.5% report already

taking part in an M&A, in contrast to 53.4%

that plan to do so in the coming years.

Finally, M&A trends among non-investment

platforms indicate that 31% of them expect

to be involved in an M&A in the future, while

only 6.8% of them acquired, were acquired,

or merged with another platform in recent

years. Such trends suggest that industry

consolidation may have seen its earlier steps

and expected to intensify industry matura-

tion.

Figure 2.19. Mergers and acquisitions among European platforms in the past

Chapter 2. Platforms

68

Figure 2.20. Mergers and acquisitions among European platforms in the future

69

Chapter 2. Platforms

2.8 Costs

When it comes to platforms’ cost structures,

there are no major dierences between plat-

forms operating under dierent models. This

is particularly true for equity (36 responses)

and lending platforms (44 responses). The

share of costs for research and develop-

ment (R&D) is about 25% for both invest-

ment-based models. Similarly, expenditures

for legal compliance account for 16% and

17% of the total costs of equity and lending

platforms, respectively. A small dierence

is captured concerning sales and marketing

(S&M). Namely, equity platforms allocate

30.8% of their total expenses to S&M, while

lending platforms allocate 26.9%. Non-in-

vestment platforms (25 responses) spend the

most on R&D (37.2%). When compared to

investment models, they spend relatively less

on S&M (21%) and legal costs (10%). This

trend may be related to a greater focus on

process eciencies than on achieving wider

operational scale for improving protability.

Figure 2.21. Platform’s costs structure by model

Chapter 2. Platforms

70

2.9 Impact measures

49 equity, 58 lending, and 31 non-investment

platforms indicated whether they already

have or plan to introduce internal systems for

assessing the impact of their operations in

terms of environmental, social, governance,

and economic impacts. Interestingly, across

all model types, impact on governance is

commonly measured (by 41%, 43%, and

52% of equity, debt, and non-investment

platforms, respectively). Equity platforms

also frequently assess the impact on the

environment (38%), the social impact (36%),

and to a lesser extent the economic impact

(16%). Debt platforms show similar patterns.

41% of them measure the environmental

impact, 40% measure the social impact,

and 19% measure the economic impact.

Non-investment platforms appear to be con-

cerned with dierent kinds of impact. 62%

of them have internal systems that track their

environmental impact, whereas 41% and

48% track the social and economic impact,

respectively.

The surprising nding that non-investment

platforms’ exhibit greater engagements in

impact measurements in general and eco-

nomic impact in particular, when compared

to investment platforms, may be explained

by three main reasons. First, externally, they

may experience a stronger need to establish

legitimacy by showing their value adding

potential versus investment models. And

second, internally, they operate under tighter

prot margins from smaller sum campaigns,

which may require an even greater careful

Figure 2.22.1. Equity platform’s impact measurement

Chapter 2. Platforms

71

Figure 2.22.2. Lending platform’s impact measurement

Figure 2.22.3. Non-investment platform’s impact measurement

management of internal cost structures.

Finally, since they are more dependent on

backers that are motivated by altruistic

action and pro-social orientations, they may

be more concerned with relevant value cre-

ation for better satisfying such backers than

investment platforms.

Chapter 3.

Fundraisers

Chapter 3. Fundraisers

73

3.1 Fundraiser onboarding

and success rates

Platforms serve as important quality guaran-

tors and trust facilitators between backers

and fundraisers. Accordingly, they engage

in campaign ltration by approving only a

part of campaign applications after relevant

compliance and quality checks. Figure 3.1.

shows that, across models, approximate-

ly 61.3% of fundraisers’ campaigns were

approved for publication by platforms

(onboarded) in 2021, while only 50% of them

were approved in 2022. The fact that plat-

forms report rejecting publication requests

from at least 50% of interested fundraisers

provides strong evidence for their commit-

ment to onboarding quality cases. While

success rates remain high in both years, the

gure in 2021 is exceptionally high with close

to 98% success reported by platforms. In

2022, this falls 10% to 88%. This, again, may

reect growing market uncertainties in 2022

which impacts both the quality of fundraisers

seeking to launch campaigns, as well as

backers’ appetite for supporting them.

When examining these gures by model,

signicant dierences are evident especially

when comparing investment and non-in-

vestment models. Non-investment platforms

seem to engage in minimum campaign lter-

ing beyond the absolute minimum necessary

(i.e., AML1, CTF2, and fraud detection), while

accepting more than 95% of campaigns

Figure 3.1. Fundraiser onboarding and success rates 2021-2022 – All models

1AML = Anti Money Laundering

2CTF = Counter-Terrorist Financing

Chapter 3. Fundraisers

74

Non-investment

Equity Lending

Figure 3.2. Fundraiser onboarding and success rates 2021-2022 by model

for publication. Investment platforms apply

much more stringent ltering both as re-

quired by law, as well as for ensuring quality

investment cases as a critical basis for long-

term platform survival and growth. In equity

only 10% of campaigns are onboarded, while

in lending the share stands closer to 16% in

2021 and 14% in 2022.

It is unsurprising that the more stringent and

demanding the onboarding process is the

higher the success rates, ranging between

92% in equity and 99% in lending. Neverthe-

less, non-investment fundraisers still enjoy

very high success rates that range between

75% and 92%.

Also, when examining the same gures by

region, some interesting dierences emerge.

Onboarding rates are signicantly lower

in Western and Northern Europe, roughly

ranging around 30% every year. Rates of

around 50% are recorded in Southern Eu-

ropean platforms, while rates closer to 90%

are recorded in Eastern Europe. This may

relate to lower volumes and lower number

of fundraisers recorded in the latter regions,

when compared to the former two. Alterna-

tively, it may also relate to a larger share of

Chapter 3. Fundraisers

75

Northern Europe Southern Europe

Figure 3.3. Fundraiser onboarding and success rates 2021-2022 by region

Eastern Europe Western Europe

non-investment platforms operating in these

regions, which have higher onboarding rates

than investment models.

Regardless of onboarding rates, success

rates remain high regardless of region, with

particularly high success rates in Eastern and

Northern Europe. The lowest success rates

are recorded in Southern Europe while still

standing at above 60%. Specic to Northern

Europe is that there is one outlier platform

facilitating donation crowdfunding, where the

number of fundraisers is exceptionally high,

and success rates are exceptionally low, in-

dicative of an abnormally low quality-control.

Accordingly, the relevant chart for Northern

Europe presents the gures with and without

this outlier.

Chapter 3. Fundraisers

76

3.2 Number of fundraisers

Pivotal to the discussion of crowdfunding’s

enhancement of nancial inclusion, is the

number of fundraisers involved in crowd-

funding activities. The participating plat-

forms provided data concerning 443,424

fundraisers i.e., those who seek funding on

their platforms across Europe. Analyzing the

platform data points that contained pertinent

fundraisers information bare a few notewor-

thy insights.

Overall, the number fundraisers across

Europe fell from 254,288 in 2021 to 189,136

in 2022, indicating a non-trivial reduction of

25.6%. However, a reduction in the number

of fundraisers should not be confused with a

reduction in total funds raised. Indeed, data

from 129 platforms shows an increase of

21% in total volumes raised between 2021

and 2022. This means that fewer fundraisers

have raised more money each on aver-

age. Keeping that in mind, the reduction in

number of fundraisers remains signicant

and could be explained by two parallel

explanations: (1) the emergence of several

government and state support schemes

across Europe for helping rms following

the covid-19 pandemic, which may have

reduced potential fundraisers’ funding needs;

and (2) growing legal uncertainty around P2P

consumer lending, may have shifted inves-

tors’ attention to P2P business and property

lending, where each fundraiser raises higher

sums on average compared to consumer

lending.

Narrowing this to model levels, we nd

mixed results for investment models in terms

of fundraisers in 2021 and 2022 where equity

models recorded 43.1% increase, lending

model recorded 45.6% decrease while

non-investment models record an 84.5%

increase. This development again is in tune

with growing legal clarity concerning equity

crowdfunding and growing legal uncertainty

concerning consumer loans. This is further

exacerbated by reduction in appetite for

consumer lending in face of major market

uncertainties, which followed the Covid-19

pandemic, as well as growing consumer

prices following the energy and food crises

that emerged after the eruption of the war in

Ukraine.

Chapter 3. Fundraisers

77

3.3 Number of fundraisers per

platform

At the platform level, results indicate that

most platforms had less than 51 fundraisers

in both 2021 (53.0%) and 2022 (48.7%). Plat-

forms belonging to the group with highest

number of fundraisers (501 and above), rep-

resented 14.8% and 16.5% of all platforms

respectively in 2021 and 2022.

When examining the 2022 gures in parallel

with the licensing status of platforms, the

data suggests that unlicensed platforms re-

port overseeing 199 fundraisers on average,

while licensed platforms report overseeing

2,026 fundraisers on average. Furthermore,

platforms having collaborations with tradi-

tional nancial institutions report overseeing

an average of 2,702 fundraisers, while those

without such collaborations oversee an aver-

age of 393 fundraisers. And in addition, plat-

forms perceiving the public in their country of

operations to be suciently knowledgeable

about crowdfunding report overseeing an

average of 6,317 fundraisers, while those

deeming their public’s knowledge to be

insucient report overseeing 235 fundraisers

on average. These dierences suggest that

platforms that are licensed, those collaborat-

ing with traditional nancial institutions, and

those operating in markets where the public

is suciently knowledgeable about crowd-

funding, can attract substantially larger num-

bers of fundraisers than those that do not.

When examining the number of fundraisers

per platform based on models, we see that

the lowest number of fundraisers is reported

in equity platforms, followed by lending plat-

Figure 3.4. Platform distribution by number of fundraisers

Number of fundraisers 2021 Number of fundraisers 2022

Chapter 3. Fundraisers

78

forms, and the highest number is reported

by reward platforms. This is unsurprising, as

this follows the average value of a fundraiser,

often highest in equity, lower in lending, and

lowest in non-investment.

In equity platforms, we nd that 79.5% of

platforms had less than 51 fundraisers in

2021 and 2022. In lending 69.9% and 63.0%

of the platforms had less than 51 fundraisers

in 2021 and 2022 respectively. On the other

hand, among non-investment platforms

37.5% and 34.4% had less than 51 fund-

raisers in 2021 and 2022 respectively. Again,

this follows the logic that non-investment

platforms facilitate more campaigns that

seek to raise lower sums each compared to

investment platforms, as well as engage in

much weaker ltration eorts when com-

pared to due diligence and risk assessments

of investment platforms.

Compared to investment platforms, non-in-

vestment platforms represent a wider variety

of fundraising scales. The share of mid-range

level (51-200 fundraisers) platforms has

increased from 21.9% to 31.2% between

2021 and 2022. However, the share of large-

scale platforms (above 200 fundraisers) has

decreased from 40.7% in 2021 to 34.4% in

2022. This trend, however, seems to be the

opposite in investment models where the

share of large-scale equity platforms (over-

seeing more than 200 fundraisers) increased

from 6.4% in 2021 to 9.1% in 2022 while the

share of large-scale lending platforms has

also increased from 17.8% to 24.7% in the

same period.

Figure 3.5. Platform distribution by number of fundraisers per model 2021-2022

Equity 2021 Equity 2022

Chapter 3. Fundraisers

79

Furthermore, when examining fundraiser

gures at the regional levels it becomes

apparent that, across regions, more than half

of the surveyed platforms conrmed to have

less than 51 fundraisers both in 2021 and

2022. Nevertheless, Western Europe repre-

sents the region with the highest proportion

of such fundraiser-range as indicated by over

70% of platforms, while the lowest share is

found in Northern Europe with 53% on aver-

age reporting similar number of fundraisers.

Overall, this may indicate the industry is still

at its growth stage, and has not yet matured,

with many relatively small-scale platforms

and fewer dominant players.

The results also indicate that 20% of plat-

forms in Eastern Europe had over 500 fund-

raisers in both 2021 and 2022, while in other

regions this group of platforms captures only

between 9%-12%. Furthermore, mid-range

platforms (overseeing 50-200 fundraisers) are

the least frequent in Western Europe (around

8%-9%), followed by Eastern Europe (13%).

In other regions, this group of platforms

represents a larger share capturing 32% in

Northern Europe, and approximately 25% in

Southern Europe.

Lending 2021

Non-invest 2021

Lending 2022

Non-invest 2022

Chapter 3. Fundraisers

80

Figure 3.6. Platform distribution by number of fundraisers per region 2021-2022

Eastern Europe 2021

Western Europe 2021

Northern Europe 2021

Eastern Europe 2022

Western Europe 2022

Northern Europe 2022

Chapter 3. Fundraisers

81

Southern Europe 2021 Southern Europe 2022

Chapter 3. Fundraisers

82

3.4 Age distribution

of fundraisers

When observing fundraisers’ age by

crowdfunding models and region, the overall

dominance of the age group 36-45 in both

2021 and 2022, acts as an indication for its

critical relevance as a target group for plat-

forms. Such an age group represents more

digital savvy adults, who may have some

professional track-record to build on in their

fundraising activities. Notably, only equity

models in Western and Southern Europe

were dominated by an older age group of 46-

55, again representing an even more mature

and experienced group that may have opted

for venturing later in life, while bringing with

them substantial human capital.

From a crowdfunding model perspective,

younger people are more likely to engage

in fundraising employing non-investment or

lending services. In contrast, more mature

individuals appear as fundraisers in equi-

ty, where 98% of fundraisers in Southern

Europe and 74% of fundraisers in Western

Europe are 46-55 years old, and 40% of

fundraisers in Northern Europe are 56-65

years old. Again, as equity platforms seek

to minimize risks for investors, they may be

more prone to approve campaigns by more

mature entrepreneurs that bring with them

longer experience and human capital.

From a regional perspective, more mature

adults in the age group of 46-55 represent

a particularly high share of fundraisers in

Southern Europe, which may be linked to

lower appetite for risk in such markets. On

the other hand, the slightly younger group

of people aged 36-45 dominates fundraising

activities in Northern and Eastern Europe,

with both regions characterized by smaller

and younger capital markets that may not

suciently ll the needs of enterprising

adults.

Chapter 3. Fundraisers

83

Figure 3.7. Fundraiser age groups by model and region 2022

Chapter 3. Fundraisers

84

3.5 Sex distribution

of fundraisers

The sex of fundraisers plays a pivotal role

in conversations about nancial inclusion.

Here, while results suggest that males con-

tinue to represent most fundraisers across

most models and regions, the discrepancy

between males and females seems to follow

more along model than regional lines. Spe-

cically, investment models present larger

imbalances between men and women, while

in non-investment models sex distribution

among fundraisers is more equal. This may

link to lower entrepreneurial activity among

women, as well as well documented stronger

risk aversion among women in career choic-

es3.

The largest share of female equity fundrais-

ers is recorded in Western Europe, represent-

ing 32% of fundraisers, while the lowest is

recorded in Southern Europe with just 3.5%

of fundraisers. The largest share of female

borrowers is recorded in Eastern and North-

ern Europe with roughly 35% of borrowers

in each, while the lowest share is recorded

in Western Europe with 18% of borrowers,

while Southern Europe is close with 20%. Fi-

Figure 3.8. Fundraiser sex distribution by model and region 2022

3See: Serwaah, P., & Shneor, R. (2021). Women and entrepreneurial nance: a systematic review. Venture Capital, 23(4), 291-

319.

Chapter 3. Fundraisers

85

nally, the largest shares of female non-invest-

ment fundraisers are reported in Southern,

Northern, and Western Europe with close to

50% of fundraisers, while in Eastern Europe

this share stands at 40%.

Furthermore, when correlating the share of

female fundraisers and volumes raised on

a platform, signicant associations can be

identied. First, in equity platforms, the larger

the share of female fundraisers the higher the

volumes raised. Here, sex of fundraiser pre-

sents a modest predictor explaining 5% of

volumes raised on platform. Second, in lend-

ing platforms, the higher the share of female

fundraisers the lower the volumes raised,

but the explanatory power captures only

2% of the variance in volumes. And third, in

non-investment platforms we see a curviline-

ar relation, where there is an optimal share of

female fundraisers at about 40%, where low-

er or higher shares of females are associated

with decreasing volumes. Interestingly, this

association is deemed particularly strong,

explaining close to 29% in the variance of

platform volumes raised. Research gener-

ally nds that women set lower sum goals

than men4. Hence, the decline above 40%

may be associated with a large proportion

of fundraisers being women targeting lower

sums in their campaigns, while lower levels

below 40% may be associated with majority

fundraisers being men that set higher goal

sums, leading to lower success rates and

volumes overall.

Nevertheless, from a technical perspec-

tive, the high concentration of observations

around the 40% level, and fewer observa-

tions at higher and lower levels, may suggest

a non-signicant association if seemingly

‘extreme’ values are removed. Since analysis

of non-investment platforms includes fewer

platforms overall, retained seemingly ‘ex-

treme’ values in the current analysis.”

Figure 3.9. Share of female fundraisers vs. volumes raised on platform (Log value) 2022

Equity 2022 Lending 2022

4See: Serwaah, P. (2022). Crowdfunding, gender and the promise of nancial democracy: a systematic review. International

Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 14(2), 263-283.

Chapter 3. Fundraisers

86

Non-investment 2022

Chapter 3. Fundraisers

87

3.6 Repeat fundraisers

When splitting fundraisers between one-time

and repeat fundraisers, data suggests that

while equity and non-investment models are

dominated by one-time fundraisers, lending

attracts a greater degree of repeat fundrais-

ers. Shares of repeat borrowers are particu-

larly high in Northern Europe, where close

to 95% of fundraisers are repeat borrowers,

which is followed by 53% of borrowers in

Southern Europe, and 47.5% in Western

Europe. Here, it is worth noting that repeat

borrowers are particularly common in prop-

erty lending, where loans are often broken

into a series of loans sometimes known as

‘trenches’, where successful repayment of

one loan is followed up with a new loan for a

dierent stage of the property development.

Repeat fundraising is less common in equity

in most regions, where its share ranges

between 10%-25%, except for Western

Europe, where 60% of fundraisers have

been identied as repeat fundraisers. Here,

while some of these are the result of multiple

equity rounds of startups progressing on

their growth plan, a large portion of this is

also captured by subordinated loans used in

Germany as a proxy for equity investments.

Like other loans, these special loans are

again easier to repeat than equity emission

rounds.

The share of non-investment repeat fund-

raisers varies more dramatically between

Figure 3.10. Share of repeat fundraisers by model and region 2022

Chapter 3. Fundraisers

88

regions, with 62% of fundraisers in Eastern

Europe versus 2% in Northern Europe. In

Southern and Western Europe, it stands at

around 20%. The abnormality in Northern

Europe is associated with an outlier platform

that follows context-specic specialized

strategies to inate campaign numbers

(such as nationwide school campaigns with

thousands of small-scale collections which

are not repeated), also exhibiting very low

success rates.

Figure 3.11. Share of repeat fundraisers vs. volumes raised on platform (Log value) 2022

Equity 2022 Lending 2022

Non-investment 2022

Furthermore, we nd strong associations

between the share of repeat fundraisers

and volumes raised on platforms in 2022.

In investment models, this relationship is

curvilinear, explaining 4.5% of volumes in

equity, and 20.1% in lending; also suggest-

ing optimal points around 50% in equity

and 60% in lending. Decrease in volumes

beyond these points may indicate platforms’

diculties in recruiting new fundraisers and

investors’ need for greater diversication of

investments on the platform.

Interestingly, the relationship is opposite in

Chapter 3. Fundraisers

89

non-investment models, while explaining

8.5% of variance in volumes. Here, low

shares and high shares of repeat fundraisers

result in higher volumes, with lowest results

reached when 50% of fundraisers are repeat

fundraisers. A possible explanation is that

most non-investment fundraisers are one-

time eorts, as revolving around concrete

opportunities for consumption or donation

that are often resolved once funding is allo-

cated. Repeat fundraising in this context may

indicate failure to fulll original campaign

goals or viewed as opportunistic behavior

by backers, whose willingness to help is

gradually exhausted with repeat fundrais-

ing. The balancing back up at high rates of

repeat fundraisers may be associated with

subscription schemes of donations, where

backers sign up in advance for supporting

fundraisers repeatedly.

Chapter 3. Fundraisers

90

3.7 Organizational type of

fundraisers

When considering the organizational type

of various fundraisers, the results show that

across regions and models, SME fundraisers

dominated equity models in all regions with

92.5%, 81.6%, 58.3%, and 58.1% in South-

ern, Western, Eastern, and Northern Europe

respectively. Similarly, SME fundraisers dom-

inated lending models in most regions with

67.1%, 58.1%, and 66.5% in the Western,

Northern, and Southern Europe respectively.

In Eastern Europe lending was dominated by

individual entrepreneurs with 47%.

Unsurprisingly, non-investment models

recorded a good proportion of non-prot

fundraisers with 52.0%, 43.3%, 25.8%

and 20.3% in Southern, Eastern, Western

and Northern respectively. Notably, large

enterprises represented only small portions

of fundraisers across regions and models.

The largest proportion of such organizations

is recorded with respect to lending in Eastern

and Southern Europe with 18.2% and 8.5%

of fundraisers respectively.

Regardless, the above ndings conrm that

crowdfunding is fullling its role in catering to

small and medium-sized enterprises as well

Figure 3.12. Fundraisers’ organizational type distribution by model and region 2022

Chapter 3. Fundraisers

91

as individual entrepreneurs, as segments that

have been underserved and overlooked by

traditional nancial institutions.

Furthermore, when exploring the associa-

tion between the share of SME fundraisers

and the volumes raised on a platform, we

only nd weak or non-existent associations.

In equity share of SME fundraisers only

explains 1% of the variance in volumes. In

lending, and when excluding consumer lend-

ing platforms, there is no association. And in

non-investment platforms, the share of SME

fundraisers explains 4.5% of volumes with a

negative association. The latter may suggest

that platforms focused on donations rather

than commercial rewards attract higher

levels of funding.

Chapter 3. Fundraisers

Funded Campaigns by Sector

Top Sectors Worldwide

The projects data is sorted into 41 dierent sectors which are determined by the options available on each

platform. The dened sector is due to the selection of the campaign owner when creating their project.

The most campaigns reached their goal in Gaming, Comics And Graphic Novels and Art and

the sectors which raised the most overall were Design, Technology and Gaming

Showing the number of projects which reached their target in all sectors.

Data presented covers all reward crowdfunding campaigns published globally on the Kickstarter and Indiegogo platforms

during 2022

Data presented covers all reward crowdfunding campaigns published globally on the Kickstarter and Indiegogo platforms

during 2022

Table 1 shows the number of campaigns active during 2022

Table 2 shows the number of projects which ended and raised funds (including exible funding) during 2022

Table 3 shows the funds raised successfully in sectors (including exible funding) during 2022Data presented covers all reward

crowdfunding campaigns published globally on the Kickstarter and Indiegogo platforms during 2022

Additional Insights from

Chapter 4.

Backers

Chapter 4. Backers

94

4.1 Number of backers

Crowdfunding’s promises of nancial de-

mocracy manifest both in improved access

to nance for fundraisers, as well as in

improved access to investment and other

nancing participation opportunities for

wider members of the public. The current

section reviews the status as reported by

European platforms about the latter. Overall,

platforms provided data related to 3,617,831

backers. Backers are providers of nancial

resources in response to a crowdfunding

campaign. These are investors in equity

models, lender-investors in lending models,

consumers in reward crowdfunding, and

donors in donation crowdfunding. And while

it is not possible to assess the degree of

overlap between backers active on multiple

platforms in parallel, the gure of 3.6 million

backers recorded on surveyed platforms,

does provide valuable insight into the scope

of crowdfunding reach in Europe currently

standing at roughly 0.5% of the total Euro-

pean population. Also indicating that much

room for further growth remains.

Overall, the number of backers across

Europe fell slightly by 1.91% between 2021

and 2022. This reduction is considered

trivial amid the aftermath of the COVID-19

pandemic and growing economic uncertain-

ties surrounding price increases in energy

and consumer goods following the war in

Ukraine. Nevertheless, when examining this

trend by model, a more substantial reduc-

tion in number of backers was recorded in

equity models with 18.7%. The reduction in

non-investment models involved a decline of

4.5% in the number of backers. Contrary to

these trends, the number of lenders in lend-

ing models increased signicantly by 29.6%.

This may indicate a dierence in preferences,

where fundraisers (as shown in chapter 3)

increasingly prefer equity models, investors

increasingly prefer lending models. Such

preferences may align with equity models

greater exibility in accommodating greater

risks, in comparison to lending models which

represent commitments to xed returns and

schedule for such payments.

Figure 4.1. shows that most platforms re-

ported serving less than 500 backers in both

2021 (42.6%) and 2022 (37.3%). The second

largest group of platforms are those reporting

serving between 1001-5000 backers (roughly

25% of platforms in both years). Finally,

the group of platforms servicing 10K-50K

backers grew from 12.0% in 2021 to 16.4%

in 2022.

95

Chapter 4. Backers

Figure 4.1. Share of platforms by number of backers 2021-2022

Numbers of backers in 2021 Number of in backers 2022

When examining the number of backers

served by platforms by model, we nd that

64.5% and 59.7% of equity crowdfunding

platforms had fewer than 500 backers in

2021 and 2022 respectively. This trend was

mirrored in both lending, where 54.2% and

48.6% of the platforms served fewer than

500 backers in 2021 and 2022, respectively;

and non-investment, where 40% and 34.6%

of the platforms served fewer than 500

backers in 2021 and 2022, respectively. This

corresponds with earlier ndings in chapter

3 that a substantial share of platforms also

reports a relatively low number of fundrais-

ers, representing the actual opportunities to

back campaigns.

Non-investment models seem to represent

a split between two main types of platforms,

one serving a large (10K-50K) number of

backers, and one serving very small (less

than 500) number of backers, each repre-

senting roughly 40% of the respondents.

The remaining platforms serving a mid-range

(between 500-5000) number of backers

represent 20%.

The stark dierence between non-investment

and investment platforms is particularly

evident with respect to platforms serving the

highest range of backers’ numbers. Here,

in 2022 while 38.5% of non-investment

platforms reported operating in this range,

only 3.9% of equity and 11.1% of lending

platforms reported operating in this range.

This relates to several important barriers

for participation in investment activities

involving investor qualication procedures

(such as tests of knowledge and ability to

bear losses), limited public knowledge about

investment opportunities on crowdfunding

platforms, as well as substantially higher

monetary sums required for participation in

related transactions, and the willingness to

take the risks that come with them.

Chapter 4. Backers

96

Furthermore, when splitting the sample by

regions, several similarities and dierences

emerge. First, the largest share of platforms

in all regions is represented by those serving

a very small number of backers (less than

500). In 2022, such platforms represent-

ed 45.5% of platforms in Eastern Europe,

61.1% in Western Europe, 37.5% in Northern

Europe, and 34.8% in Southern Europe.

All regions also report a growth in the

share of platforms serving 5K-10K backers

between 2021 and 2022. Growth from 25%

to 27.3% in Eastern Europe, from 7.4% to

9.5% in Western Europe, from 12.5% to

17.5% in Northern Europe, and 4.8% to

Non-investment 2021 Non-investment 2022

Figure 4.2. Share of platforms by number of backers per model 2021-2022

Equity 2021

Lending 2021

Equity 2022

Lending 2022

Chapter 4. Backers

97

17.4% in Southern Europe. However, while

the growth in Eastern, Western, and Northern

Europe came in parallel to growth in the

share of platforms serving 10K-50K backers,

in Southern Europe the growth in the 5K-10K

came at the expense of a decline in the share

of platforms serving 10K-50K backers.

Figure 4.3. Share of platforms by number of backers per region 2021-2022

Eastern Europe 2021

Western Europe 2021

Northern Europe 2021

Eastern Europe 2022

Western Europe 2022

Northern Europe 2022

Chapter 4. Backers

98

Furthermore, we explore three conditions

and whether they result in dierent num-

bers of backers. First, when investigating

dierences between licensed and unlicensed

platforms we nd that unlicensed platforms

have an average of 28,447 backers while

licensed platforms have 9,076 backers on

average. This corresponds well with stringent

onboarding of investors in investment mod-

els, which require licensing, versus less de-

manding onboarding of backers and donors

on non-investment platforms, which often do

not require special licenses.

Second, when examining dierences

between platforms that have collaborations

with traditional nancial institutions versus

those that do not, we nd that the former

group has an average of 5,449 backers,

while the latter has 7,060 backers on aver-

age. This implies that collaboration with tra-

ditional nancial institutions does not provide

clear benets in attracting more backers1.

And third, we nd that platforms that report

that the publics they serve are suciently

knowledgeable about crowdfunding have

10,110 backers on average, while those

reporting the public is not suciently knowl-

edgeable about crowdfunding have 3,988

backers on average. This implies that in

markets where the public is better informed

about crowdfunding, platforms can attract a

higher number of backers and investors to

the campaigns they publish.

Southern Europe 2021 Southern Europe 2022

1Partnership with traditional nancial institutions may still aid in attracting more sophisticated investors, but the current study

does not have data for conrming such assumption.

Chapter 4. Backers

99

4.2 Backer age

Backers’ age distributions vary by model and

region. First, in the equity model investors

aged 36-45 dominate Eastern Europe,

representing 89% and 97% of investors in

2021 and 2022, respectively. In Northern

Europe even younger investors, aged 26-35,

dominate the market representing 61% and

73% of investors in 2021 and 2022, respec-

tively. In contrast, in Western Europe, older

investors, aged 46 and higher, dominate

representing 63% of investors. In Southern

Europe no age group dominates the market,

exhibiting a more balanced distribution of

backers’ age groups.

Second, in lending crowdfunding lender-in-

vestors aged 36-45 seem to capture a similar

proportion of investors regardless of region,

while ranging between 32% in Southern

Europe to 38% in Northern Europe in 2022.

Under this model, young investors, aged 25-

36 dominate Eastern Europe, representing

close to 45% of investors in both 2021 and

2022. Older investors, aged 46 and above,

again dominate Western Europe, while

representing 59% of investors. In Northern

Europe, the two largest age groups capture

similar proportions, with investors aged 36-

45 representing 38.5% and investors 46 and

older representing 39.6%. Also, with respect

to lending, Southern Europe presents the

most balanced distribution of these three

main age groups, each capturing roughly a

third of the market.

Figure 4.4.1 Age distribution of equity crowdfunding backers by model and region

Equity 2021 Equity 2022

Chapter 4. Backers

100

Finally, in non-investment crowdfunding,

backers aged 46 and above represent the

largest portions of backers in Western,

Southern, and Northern Europe capturing

47.3%, 45.9%, and 39.1% of backers,

respectively during 2022. The only exception

is Eastern Europe where backers aged 36-45

represent the largest portion of backers, rep-

resenting 50% of backers in 2021 and 2022.

The highest proportion of young backers,

aged 18-35, is recorded in Northern Europe,

capturing 38.3% in 2021 and 2022.

Interestingly, and across models, the age

group of 56 and older is largely absent in

Eastern Europe. The younger prole overall

of Eastern European backers may represent

generational change of those growing after

regime transitions following the fall of the

Soviet bloc, who are more nancially literate,

more experienced with capitalist market

dynamics, are more tech-savvy and trusting

than older generations.

Figure 4.4.2 Age distribution of lending crowdfunding backers by model and region

Figure 4.4.3 Age distribution of non-investment crowdfunding backers by model and region

Lending 2021

Non-investment 2021

Lending 2022

Non-investment 2022

Chapter 4. Backers

101

4.3 Backer sex

When dividing backers between men and

women, data shows little dierences in

their relative distribution between years but

does identify major dierences by model

and region. First, we see that while women

dominate backers of non-investment models,

representing between 52% and 60% across

regions, they are a minority group among

investors in investment models. Accordingly,

women only represent between 18% and

27% of investors in equity, and 7% to 27%

of investors in lending in 2022 respectively.

This is consistent with research showing that

women are more risk-averse, less condent

in nancial decision-making than men2, as

well as often earning less than men in most

job categories which also implies less dis-

posable income when compared to men3.

Figure 4.5. Sex distribution of backers by model and region 2021-2022

Equity 2021

Lending 2021

Equity 2022

Lending 2022

2See: Serwaah, P., & Shneor, R. (2021). Women and entrepreneurial nance: a systematic review. Venture Capital, 23(4), 291-

319.

3See: OECD. (2012). Closing the Gender Gap: Act Now. OECD Publishing.

Chapter 4. Backers

102

Non-investment 2021 Non-investment 2022

When examining investment models region-

ally, the lowest shares of women backers

are documented in Southern Europe,

where 6.7% of lenders and 18.1% of equity

investors are women. On the other hand,

relatively higher shares of women backers

are documented in Western and Northern

Europe, where these shares range between

24.8% to 26.7%.

Figure 4.6. Share of female backers versus volumes raise on platform 2022

Equity 2022 Lending 2022

Non-investment 2022

Chapter 4. Backers

103

Furthermore, when exploring the association

between the proportion of female backers

and volumes raised by the survey platforms,

we nd signicant relations between the

two. Notably, the explanatory power of the

correlations diers across models where the

share of female backers explains 7.1% of the

variance in volumes raised by equity plat-

forms, 3% of the variance in volumes raised

by lending platforms, and 6.8% of the var-

iance in volumes raised by non-investment

platforms in 2022. In the case of non-invest-

ment, the trend is clear where higher share

of females leads to higher volumes raised. In

equity the same logic follows, but up until the

point where most investors are women, and

then volumes raised fall slightly. In lending,

however, there seems to be an optimal point

at around 30% female lenders. Up to this

point increasing shares of female investors

lead to volume increase, but after it they lead

to volumes’ decrease. In both investment

cases, declining volumes with higher share

of women investors, may be related to earlier

research suggesting that women invest

smaller sums than men4.

4See: Serwaah, P., & Shneor, R. (2021). Women and entrepreneurial nance: a systematic review. Venture Capital, 23(4), 291-

319.

Chapter 4. Backers

104

4.4 Repeat backers

When examining the relative proportions

of backers that are one-time versus repeat

backers, we again nd dierences across

models and regions. Overall, the ndings

suggest that, across regions, most backers

on investment platforms during 2022 were

repeat investors, representing 60.6% of eq-

uity investors and 66.6% of investor-lenders.

This was dierent in non-investment models

where 79.4% of backers across regions were

rst time backers, and only 20.6% were

repeat backers. This may reect the need

to spread risks by managing a portfolio of

investments in equity and lending, which is

not necessary when pre-purchasing products

or supporting a donation collection.

Hence, repeat backers in non-investment

platforms are more akin to patrons who seek

enjoyment from helping others, and while

they may be interested in actual products or

services, they do not view related transac-

tions as investments whose risks need to be

managed.

Figure 4.7. Share of repeat backers by model and region 2022

Equity 2022

Non-investment 2022

Lending 2022

105

Chapter 4. Backers

Figure 4.8. Share of repeat backers versus volumes raised on platform in 2022

Equity 2022

Non-investment 2022

Lending 2022

Moreover, the analysis of relations between

share of repeat backers and volumes raised

on platforms presents interesting insights.

Here, results indicate that the share of repeat

backers explains 10.6% of variance in vol-

umes raised by platform, and that this rela-

tion has an optimal point around 50%, mean-

ing that up to 50% repeat backers in equity

platforms lead to increasing volumes, and

above it, volumes decrease. A similar pattern

is also identied with respect to lending with

even stronger associations, explaining 22.2%

of the variance in volumes raised. Here,

again, an optimal point emerges around 75%

of repeat investors. Accordingly, in platforms

with up to 75% of repeat backers, volumes

increase, and shares above it led to decrease

in volumes. In non-investment, the relation-

ship follows an opposite trend, where up

to 60% repeat backers, volumes decrease

albeit to a relatively low degree, and after it

they increase. Here, this association explains

4.4% of the variance in volumes raised by

non-investment platforms.

Chapter 4. Backers

106

4.5 Type of backers

When distinguishing between backers that

are private individuals versus backers that

are organizations, dierences across models

and regions emerge again. Across all regions

and models, private investors represent

most backers in both 2021 and 2022. Private

investors constituted 72.4% of equity and

78.5% of lending investors, as well as 94.5%

of non-investment backers in 2022.

Figure 4.9. Types of backers by model and region 2022

Equity 2022 Lending 2022

Non-investment 2022

Furthermore, in equity platforms organi-

zational investors captured similar shares

ranging between 26% and 32% of investors

in Eastern, Western, and Southern Europe.

However, organizational investors represent-

ed a substantially lower share of equity in-

vestors in Northern Europe (11%). A possible

explanation here is a combination of extreme

institutional rigidity in Nordic countries and

limited availability of early-stage venture

nancing in both Nordic and Baltic Europe.

A slightly dierent picture is evident in

Chapter 4. Backers

107

Figure 4.10. Share of organizational backers versus volumes raised on platform 2022

Equity 2022 Lending 2022

lending, where Western and Northern Europe

sees organizational investor involvement

representing 20%-23%, whereas in Eastern

and Southern Europe it stands at 9.1% and

13.9%. Finally, since non-investment cam-

paigns do not present prospects of nancial

return, limited backing by organizations

is mostly linked to smaller-scale donation

activities as part of broader corporate social

responsibility and community involvement. In

this context, the results seem to suggest that

organizations from Southern Europe may

be using crowdfunding for such activities to

a greater extent than organizations in other

regions.

If organizations have larger resources than

individuals, it is worth investigating whether a

greater share of organizational backers also

leads to higher volumes raised by platforms.

Overall, our ndings suggest this is not the

case across models. First, there is no clear

association between organizational backers

and volumes raised on non-investment plat-

forms. Second, this association does exist in

investment models, but is not linear. Indeed,

it mostly takes a U-shape.

Non-investment 2022

Chapter 4. Backers

108

In both equity and lending, volumes de-

crease up to a level where around 50% of in-

vestors are organizational investors and rise

again when the share of organizations inves-

tors increases above 50%. This association

explains 7.1% of the variance of volumes

raised in the case of equity, while explain

only 2.6% of the variance in volumes raised

on lending platforms. Taken together, this

suggests that when organizational investors

represent up to 50% of investors on a plat-

form, their involvement actually reduces the

volumes raised rather than increases them.

This may be explained by a combination of

gradual erosion of private investors’ impact

with growing involvement of organizational

investors, discontent of private investors with

benets enjoyed by organizational investors

such as rst or preferred access to opportu-

nities, as well as loss of interest by investors

who view such trends as countering original

value proposition of crowdfunding in enhanc-

ing nancial democracy. Nevertheless, on

investment platforms where more than 50%

of investors are organizations rather than

individuals, higher shares of the former lead

to increasing volumes.

109

Chapter 4. Backers

4.6 International backers

Until recently, crowdfunding regulations have

been overseen locally in each country within

Europe largely hampering cross-border

ows and investments. The data captured

in the current study represents the last year

preceding regulatory harmonization in Eu-

rope, at least with respect to business invest-

ment crowdfunding models. Unsurprisingly,

data shows that across models and regions,

most backers originate domestically.

In equity, platforms in Western, Northern, and

Southern Europe report 1%-7% international

investors, while only Eastern Europe reports

a larger share of international investors

standing at 38.5% of all investors. Never-

theless, a large portion of these is likely to

include home-nationals that have migrated to

work in other regions of Europe, as part of a

wider migration wave from Eastern Europe in

the past three decades.

Lending, on the other hand, represents

the most internationally inuenced model

in relative terms. Where 29% of investors

in Northern Europe, 25.9% of investors in

Eastern Europe, and 10.9% of investors in

Western Europe are international investors.

Unlike equity, loans don’t have physical

anchoring in foreign markets and mostly

represent temporary digital agreements, and

hence ‘easier’ to invest in across borders.

In addition, lending models rarely fall within

the scope of securities regulations, which

typically require fundraisers and platforms

to comply with regulatory requirements of a

jurisdiction where investors are based. The

latter situation creates a great regulatory bur-

den in terms of scoping and complying with

many dierent regulatory regimes.

Figure 4.11. Share of international versus domestic backers by model and region 2022

Equity 2022 Lending 2022

110

Chapter 4. Backers

Non-investment 2022

Surprisingly, and despite minimal limiting

regulations in most instances of non-in-

vestment crowdfunding, international

backing remains limited. This may be due

to the domination of global players such as

Kickstarter and Indiegogo which may attract

internationally oriented projects, while more

domestically oriented projects end up being

promoted on locally anchored platforms in

local languages, often limiting international

appeal and access to such projects.

Regardless of model and region, most

international backers come from other and

neighboring European countries rather

than non-European countries. The largest

share of non-European based investors

was reported by equity platforms in Eastern

Europe with 6.7% of all investors. While,

such information was not available, one may

speculate that these may include groups of

Russian investors as well as Eastern Europe-

an migrants in North America.

Figure 4.12. Share of international backers versus volumes raised on platform 2022

Equity 2022 Lending 2022

111

Chapter 4. Backers

Non-investment 2022

When examining relations between share

of foreign backers and volumes raised on

platforms, we nd no clear association in

the case of equity platforms. Nevertheless,

a positive association is identied in the

case of lending platforms, indicating that a

higher share of international investors leads

to higher volumes being raised. Here, the

share of foreign investors explained 6% of

the variance in volumes raised on lending

platforms. In non-investment the relation-

ship is signicant but negative, indicating

that higher shares of foreign investors were

evident in platforms raising smaller volumes.

In this case, the share of foreign backers

explained 20% of the variance in volumes

raised by platforms. This surprising nding

can be explained by the fact that higher

levels of international backing are recorded

in donation crowdfunding, where campaigns

raise modest sums, and relatively lower sums

overall when compared to all other models.

Chapter 4. Backers

Sectors By Most Backers

The Top 20 Countries for Funded Campaigns During

Jan-Dec 2022

Sectors ordered by average numbers of backers, per campaign, from January to December 2022

This map shows the top 20 countries by number of campaigns which reached their target.

Find out more and see the full tables at TheCrowdDataCenter.com

The most campaigns reached their goal in United States, United Kingdom and Canada and

the countries which raised the most overall were Japan, United States and Hong Kong

Data presented covers all reward crowdfunding campaigns published globally on the Kickstarter and Indiegogo platforms

during 2022

Data presented covers all reward crowdfunding campaigns published globally on the Kickstarter and Indiegogo platforms

during 2022

Additional Insights from

Chapter 5.

Crowdfunding

technology

Chapter 5. Crowdfunding technology

114

5.1 Technology overview

Technology plays a dening role in the

crowdfunding industry. It facilitates the fund-

raising process by oering global access to

investment opportunities, providing a smooth

and modern user experience, payment se-

curity, regulatory compliance, data analytics,

marketing communication, scalability and

performance optimization.

Crowdfunding and online investment plat-

forms typically use a mix of dierent technol-

ogies and services to ensure streamlined and

automated processes, with the core technol-

ogy—the platform itself—lying at the center.

There are several ways to build a crowdfund-

ing platform’s tech core: use a software-as-

a-service solution (SaaS), buy ready-made

(proprietary) crowdfunding software, create

the platform in-house or outsource building

the platform to a third-party team.

Software-as-a-service crowdfunding technol-

ogy (also called white-label crowdfunding

software) allows platforms to go to market

quickly but with certain limitations regarding

features, custom functionality and overall

platform scalability.

Proprietary crowdfunding software is usually

more exible than pure SaaS solutions. De-

pending on the software vendor, ready-made

software can be customized to t specic

business needs or left as it is. The main

dierence from the SaaS option would be the

absence of vendor lock-in in most cases.

Building a platform in-house or with an

outsourced tech team allows rms to create

the most bespoke platform software from

scratch and tailor it to all business and

regulatory requirements. In-house-built

software tends to be more expensive due

to the cost of keeping the whole team, but

it also allows tweaking things quickly and

retaining the organization’s knowledge. All of

this makes a business more sustainable and

exible. Crowdfunding software built with

an outsourced provider may be cheaper for

the company but requires more resources to

manage the development process.

115

Chapter 5. Crowdfunding technology

5.2 Tech strategies by model

and region

In our sample, 60% of equity and 64% of

lending-based crowdfunding platforms, built

their crowdfunding software in-house, which

could be either a sign of business maturity,

a strong preference for exible and timely

design and adaptation, as well as concerns

with proprietary ownership. At the same time,

only 19% of the platforms operating non-in-

vestment-based models built their software

in-house. This may be related to lower

revenue levels from success fees on smaller

campaigns when compared to investment

models, requiring opting for the most

cost-ecient platform development options.

Accordingly, the most popular tech-building

strategy for them was to build a platform

with an outsourced team, which accounted

for 50% of non-investment respondents, not

requiring a commitment to labor costs that

may be associated with in-house devel-

opment. In contrast, only 19% of lending

and 22% of equity platforms chose to build

software with an outsourced provider.

Figure 5.1. Percentage of equity-based crowdfunding platforms by technology

Chapter 5. Crowdfunding technology

116

Figure 5.2. Percentage of lending-based crowdfunding platforms by technology

Figure 5.3. Percentage of non-investment-based crowdfunding platforms by technology

Buying crowdfunding software was the

second most popular strategy for non-invest-

ment-based platforms, as 24% of platforms

chose this option. This was, however, the

least popular option for lending and equity

platforms with 3% and 2% of the platforms

reporting this choice, respectively.

SaaS software was used only by 14% of

lending and 16% of equity platforms. In com-

parison, non-investment platforms were even

less inclined to run on SaaS, as was reported

by 5.2% of these respondents.

Chapter 5. Crowdfunding technology

117

Figure 5.4. Crowdfunding technology used by platforms per region

When reviewing the tech strategy by region,

platforms from Eastern (92%), Western

(61%) and Northern Europe (64%) built the

platform in-house, while in Southern Europe

this proportion was substantially lower (8%).

At the same time, platforms from Southern

Europe have not reported buying software,

and the proportion of those who outsourced

crowdfunding software development reaches

77%.

Software outsourcing is less popular in

Western (21%) and Northern Europe (16%)

and is least popular in Eastern Europe (8%).

The latter might have to do with a higher

concentration and availability of aordable

tech talent in Eastern European countries,

which gives the platforms from this region

an advantage in building new tech and im-

plementing advanced user experience much

quicker.

Regarding SaaS software usage, respond-

ents from Eastern Europe have not reported

using it at all, while this solution was used

by 15% of the platforms from Western,

16% from Northern and 15% from Southern

Europe.

Finally, software purchasing is the least

popular option among our respondents from

Western (3%) and Northern Europe (3%).

None of the responding platforms from East-

ern and Southern Europe indicated using this

strategy.

Eastern Europe

Southern EuropeNorthern Europe

Western Europe

Chapter 5. Crowdfunding technology

118

5.3 Payment processing

Crowdfunding platforms usually process

payments either through a third-party pro-

vider (e.g., Lemonway, Mangopay, Paysera,

Mollie, Sofort, Secupay, etc.) or through their

own payment gateway, in which case they

are required to hold a relevant license of a

payment service provider. Payment process-

ing typically involves several underlying pro-

cesses like KYC and AML/CTF verication,

wallet creation, scheduled payment and re-

fund management, escrow or money holding,

etc. All of this can be highly demanding for a

platform to handle in-house, at least when it

is an early-stage business.

We found that the usage of third-party pay-

ment service providers, predictably, prevails

across all models as reported by 92% in

equity, 79% in lending and 83% in non-in-

vestment crowdfunding platforms. Only 8%

of our respondents who run equity crowd-

funding platforms use their own payment

processing system, while this parameter is a

bit higher for lending (21%) and non-invest-

ment platforms (17%).

The split of payment processing strategies

across the regions shows divergent patterns.

We established that 31% of platforms from

Eastern Europe and 36% from Northern

Europe operate their own payment solution,

as opposed to just 3% in Western and 19%

in Southern Europe. One potential expla-

nation may be a possible higher degree of

Figure 5.5. Payment processing by business model

Chapter 5. Crowdfunding technology

119

Figure 5.6. Payment processing by region

bank involvement in the alternative nance

space in these regions, which may facilitate

the adoption of own payment processing

mechanisms.

Chapter 5. Crowdfunding technology

120

5.4 Advanced feature usage

Crowdfunding platforms introduce additional

features beyond the standard setup that in-

cludes investment opportunity view, investor

registration, actual investing, and receiving

returns. These extra features not only help

platforms compete by providing better

investor and fundraiser experiences, but also

move crowdfunding technology forward.

Not all crowdfunding platforms strive to

provide additional functionalities, and their

interest in doing so depends on a variety of

factors like the business model or its capac-

ity to invest in their development and main-

tenance of new functionalities. We asked

our respondents whether they use or plan to

implement the following additional features

and technologies: auto-investing, secondary

market, referral system, mobile app, open

banking, investing through an advisor, early

access to investment opportunities, and

legal tech.

Figure 5.7. Feature usage by equity-based crowdfunding platforms

Among the equity-based crowdfunding

platforms we surveyed, early access to

investment opportunities was the most pop-

ular feature that is already implemented by

platforms (44%), followed by referral system

(32%), legal tech (24%), secondary market

(22%), investing through an advisor (20%),

mobile app (16%), auto-investing (16%), and

open banking (10%). The top features that

are planned to be implemented by these

Chapter 5. Crowdfunding technology

121

In the lending-based cluster, things are

somewhat dierent as more platforms have

conrmed to have already implemented

referral systems (45%), secondary market

(38%), mobile app (35%), auto-investing

(35%), early access to investing opportuni-

ties (31%), open banking (26%), investing

through an advisor (24%), and legal tech

(24%). The proportion of the top features

to be implemented in the future is similar to

the responses from the equity-crowdfund-

ing cluster, and include mobile applications

(31%), secondary market (29%), and auto-in-

vesting (29%).

Figure 5.8. Feature usage by lending-based crowdfunding platforms

platforms are mobile applications (30%),

secondary market (26%) and auto-investing

(26%).

Chapter 5. Crowdfunding technology

122

Figure 5.9. Feature usage by non-investment-based crowdfunding platforms

Donation- and reward-crowdfunding plat-

forms do not adopt or plan to implement

many advanced features due to the nature

of their activities. Since entry costs of such

platforms are lower than in investment mod-

els, it is interesting to observe that most op-

erators do not seek to achieve feature varie-

ty, and thus gain an important distinguished

market position in a segment characterized

by relatively narrow margins and competi-

tive landscape. The most popular features

already in use are a referral system (16%),

an early access to opportunities (14%), and

a mobile app (10%). Some of the features

considered for future development, albeit by

a small minority, include a mobile app and

secondary market feature (14% each), as

well as a referral system, advisor, Legal tech,

and auto-pledging (by 10% each).

Chapter 5. Crowdfunding technology

123

5.5 Blockchain usage

Blockchain technology is not yet widely

adopted by the crowdfunding community,

yet it can bring many benets like better data

protection and traceability, transparency,

transaction security through smart contracts,

etc. More tangible solutions include crypto

payments, secondary trading, and asset

tokenization. The latter is particularly relevant

in real estate crowdfunding, where a real es-

tate asset is fragmented into digital tokens,

each representing a fraction of the underlying

property.

We asked the respondents to answer if they

use or plan to use three types of blockchain

solutions in crowdfunding: asset tokeni-

zation, crypto payments, and secondary

trading.

Figure 5.10. Blockchain usage by platforms per model

Equity

Non-invest

Lending

As seen from the responses we got, quite a

small proportion of platforms use or plan to

use blockchain across models. The highest

adoption is among equity crowdfunding

platforms, with asset tokenization being the

most popular application (6%), followed by

secondary trading (4%), and crypto pay-

ments (2%).

124

Chapter 5. Crowdfunding technology

Crypto payments are used less by lending

crowdfunding platforms (2%). Asset tokeni-

zation and secondary trading are equally

used by lending platforms, resulting in 3%

reporting each.

When assessing the plans of crowdfunding

platforms to implement blockchain solutions,

the picture looks quite promising. Asset

tokenization is in the pipeline for 21% of

lending crowdfunding platforms and 18%

of equity crowdfunding platforms, followed

by secondary trading (19% and 16%) and

crypto payments (12% and 8%).

Blockchain might not provide many benets

for non-investment platforms, and the

responses we got match these realities.

Probably the most relevant application here

relates to the use of crypto payments which

is already used by 3% of platforms of this

type, and another 3% plan on implementing

it in the future. Interestingly, 10% have con-

rmed to implement asset tokenisation in the

future, followed by secondary trading (3%).

As blockchain and DLT regulations are

being implemented across many European

countries, the adoption of these technologies

by crowdfunding platforms may become

more intensive in the coming years and be a

unique selling point for some of them.

Chapter 5. Crowdfunding technology

125

5.6 Process automation

Streamlining operations and improving user

experiences through automation is key to

many crowdfunding platforms, especially in

high-competition spheres like consumer and

business lending or real estate crowdfunding.

For example, the most popular and demand-

ed features identied earlier in this chapter

(section 5.4) are auto investing and second-

ary market features that involve automation.

Process automation for client-facing parts of

the platform is typically of the highest priority

as it has a direct impact on user conversion

and retention. Some process automation

may also be required by regulators.

36% of the platforms surveyed said they

are very satised with process automation

and 58% said they are somewhat satised.

Only 6% of the platforms were unsatised.

Accordingly, when asked about processes

platforms would automate if they had an

unlimited budget, most mentioned payment

processing, credit scoring, credit risk assess-

ment, business valuation, due diligence, KYC

verication, analytics and reporting tools, AI

and machine learning for fraud prevention,

project initiation, etc.

Figure 5.11. Satisfaction with process automation on crowdfunding platforms

Endnotes

125

About LenderKit

LenderKit is a versatile investment software that can be customized and branded to suit the

needs of crowdfunding platforms, private equity, and venture capital rms. Its primary goal is

to help businesses automate their operations, attract more investors or fundraisers, and close

more private capital deals. The software streamlines deal ow, boosts investor condence,

optimizes payouts, increases eciency, and improves ROI.

We have helped companies in Europe, the UK, MENA, and Southeast Asia launch, support and

expand their business through ongoing platform customization and maintenance.

LenderKit may be a potential solution if you want to:

• Expand your current investment business

• Leverage alternative nancing for real estate companies

• Build a robust investment management platform

• Transform your equity crowdfunding venture

• Reduce management burden

Key features of LenderKit include:

• AdminBackOce: LenderKit provides an admin back oce for internal operations and

platform management.

• WebPortalforInvestorsandFundraisers: It oers a web portal for investors and fund-

raisers, allowing them to interact with the platform.

• MarketingSite: LenderKit includes a marketing site for promotion and customer onboard-

ing.

• InvestmentFlows: The platform allows the combination of debt, equity, or donation ows

to provide a diverse experience to customers.

• FeesManagement: LenderKit enables the management of fees associated with the

investment processes.

• SecondaryMarket: It supports a secondary market for trading existing investments.

• PermissionSettings: The software provides robust permission settings to control access

to dierent parts of the platform.

• E-wallets: LenderKit includes e-wallet functionality for convenient fund management.

Endnotes

126

• GDPRModule: It oers a GDPR module to assist with data protection compliance.

• Customization: Each part of the LenderKit software can be fully customized to meet

specic business needs, regulations, and processes.

• Scalability: LenderKit can function as a prototype, a quick-to-set-up operational platform,

or a fully scalable software, making it suitable for businesses at dierent stages.

• ComplianceandAutomation: The software facilitates compliance, automates operations,

and saves time, reducing costs for the business.

• Integration: LenderKit integrates with industry-leading payment gateways, KYC/AML

providers, and document signature and ling automation providers.

• CustomDevelopmentServices: It combines software expertise with custom develop-

ment services to build unique crowdfunding solutions.

At LenderKit, we understand that dierent businesses have dierent needs. That’s why we oer

a range of pricing tiers to suit every stage and purpose, from MVP solutions to fully-edged

enterprise-grade platforms. We’re always eager to have a conversation with you and under-

stand your business needs better so that we can show you exactly how LenderKit can help you

achieve your goals.

lenderkit.com

Endnotes

127

About CrowdSpace

CrowdSpace is a crowdfunding platform aggregator that serves as a comprehensive search

tool for everyday investors and fundraisers, unifying over 600 crowdfunding platforms in Eu-

rope and the UK. It oers investors a wide range of platforms across various business sectors,

including real estate, SMEs, litigation, sports, farming, sustainability, arts, and education.

Additionally, CrowdSpace functions as a hub for investors, fundraisers, and platform owners,

providing a valuable marketing channel for crowdfunding platforms and enhancing their visibil-

ity.

The directory oers a vast database and ltering tools that help users nd crowdfunding

platforms based on their country of operation, investment type, industry, and ECSP license

availability. The directory also provides valuable resources, such as platform reviews, exclusive

interviews with crowdfunding providers, and tips for successful participation in crowdfunding

for both investors and project owners. In addition, CrowdSpace actively conducts research,

shares industry knowledge, and promotes crowdfunding as a viable alternative nancing

option.

CrowdSpace acts as a crowdfunding platform aggregator and releases an annual crowdfund-

ing industry report that oers valuable insights into the European crowdfunding market. The

report includes information about crowdfunding platform regulations, challenges, and industry

trends, which are benecial for crowdfunding analysts and industry professionals.

Overall, CrowdSpace plays a pivotal role in the European crowdfunding ecosystem, oering a

wealth of information, resources, and tools for investors, fundraisers, and platform owners and

contributing to the growth and development of the crowdfunding industry in Europe and the

UK.

thecrowdspace.com

The European Crowdfunding Market Report 2023

Abstract

Recommended publications

The crowdfunding regulation in Germany - on the path to self-isolation?

Crowdfunding in Europe: Between Fragmentation and Harmonization

A Trust-Based Crowdfunding Campaign Marketing Framework: Theoretical Underpinnings and Big-Data Anal...

The joint production of confidence – self-regulation in European crowdfunding markets