Fundable comes to an ugly end

Pretty one-sided, but I suppose a domain name can only belong to one side of any argument.<p>For the uninitiated, Fundable was a site where you could input a dollar amount and accept donations towards that 'goal'. If the goal wasn't reached within a certain time period, the money was returned to the individual donors. If the goal was reached, the money was released to whoever initiated the campaign, minus a hefty 7% commission fee.<p>As far as I could tell (I used it back in 2007 but quickly jumped ship when I realized how rickety it was) it was pretty much a giant Paypal API with bad UX and even worse customer service.

As my cofounder and I are currently finalizing our own incorporation, I look at Fundable's sad situation and think, "Wow. What if that were us? Is there any way we can avoid ever having that kind of situation with a clever bit of legalese?"<p>Unfortunately, I suspect the answer is "no". As soon as you give one partner the ability to eject the other (for <i>whatever</i> reason), you open the door for all sorts of abuse. Besides which, if a partner wants to cause chaos and destruction, you're in for supreme nastiness, regardless of the legal situation.<p>So, at the end of the day, I think the best you can do is choose your business partners carefully, keep things above board, and do the best you can to behave morally and ethically. That way, even if things go to shit, hopefully you'll still be able to walk out with your head held high.<p>I'm sorry Fundable went out this way. Sounds ugly as hell.

<p><pre><code> Louis Helm programmed the the payment system. </code></pre> if this is an indication of their attention to detail, it's probably a good thing they had to close before they lost their user data to some hackers.<p>Based on what was written, I'd be surprised if both "founders" aren't 18.<p>edit: googled, and found some photos(Pratt looks to be ~26, while the coder guy does indeed appear to be ~16: <a href="http://emilychang.com/e/go/ehub/interview/fundable" rel="nofollow">http://emilychang.com/e/go/ehub/interview/fundable</a>

I'm torn between 'sad' and 'pathetic'. The word 'immaturity' applies, without question or hesitation.

<p><pre><code> seek legal action against Louis Helm personally should he fail to resolve your payment issues promptly</code></pre> Well, IANAL, but I don't think that is how it works. The corporation is liable for funds it holds on your behalf. Boy would I be worried if I were Pratt.

For those who are late to the party like me, here's a screenshot I found of the original farewell message: <a href="http://img18.yfrog.com/img18/2396/s8u.png" rel="nofollow">http://img18.yfrog.com/img18/2396/s8u.png</a><p>John was actually one of my college roommates, it's sad to see this come to an end like this.

This is what happens when you give someone 50% of a company for <i>simply having an idea</i>.

John Pratt and his company FUNDABLE NEVER SENT ME A CHECK for the $400.000 raised. It was raised JULY 27 2009 AND THIS IS OCTOBER 18 2009. He will not reply to any emails and the company has NEVER had a way to SPEAK to anyone EVER. I am sure i am just one of many people who have had their money stolen from FUNDABLE. I would like to start a class action suit and am looking into creating a website so that we (ripped off people) can all find each other. He is a common THIEF. This is not a story of basement company gone awry. This is a story of outright plundering of peoples wallets and then walking away and thinking there is no consequence. WHERE IS THE 400.00 ALL THIS TIME? Anyones guess but it (minus their huge 10percent cut) is NOT in my hands nor supporting the rescue dog SY that it was intended for. DO NOT USE FUNDABLE EVER.

I have to really ask, "Why is this upvoted so much?" There aren't really lessons in here; it's just bitter drama.

I am having a total mental block trying to recall the name of the "Donate people money through Twitter" service that was on HN a few times, but I think this is what he meant when he said "Do not take payments lightly."<p>[Edited to add: Tipjoy. I knew it was T-something but I ran through about 15 combinations of Twit-X before realizing that it was not from that naming convention.]

Could not resist a laugh really, this is so childish. That's why I would not put any trust in an online business without knowing it's background - can as well be two boys in a basement.

Wow, that's not good for anybody. I guess this is really a case of "be careful who your partners are", jeeze.

Long live <a href="http://www.kickstarter.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.kickstarter.com</a>

This is exactly why I will never go into business with a non-technical person. This site is exactly what I think of when I think "business person".

In spite of all the issues this case raises, only one popped out at me...<p>Team of 2: 1 programmer + 1 non-programmer = bad combination.<p>Maybe I'm a little old fashioned, but in a 2 person web startup, <i>both</i> should be programmers. I'm certainly not suggesting that this is what caused this situation, but it sure didn't help...<p>Since only one programmed, the probability of future difficulties increased dramatically, and once they did occur, he was the only one who could have dealt with them. A team approach probably would have been much better for technical problems, both preventing them and handling them.

I'm curious if anyone has experience with something like this or know of other situations where a joint venture was owned 50/50 and one side allegedly decided to take their ball and go home?<p>Is there legal recourse either side can take to reclaim ownership and move on?

so he's complaining about his partner being immature and the second phrase on the site gives away said partners personal contact information?<p>Am I the only one seeing a slight bit of irony there?

Here is the boing boing post referenced in the original farewell message: <a href="http://boingboing.net/2009/08/22/fundable-rips-off-hu.html" rel="nofollow">http://boingboing.net/2009/08/22/fundable-rips-off-hu.html</a><p>Comments #5, #13, #23, #25, #30 and #31 between Mr. Pratt and Cory Doctorow are the relevant bits. I'm sure there is lesson here about mega-blog PR.

Kind of frighteningly, it's now back up in it's original form, ready to take your money again.

It does not matter how fucked up things became, you don't go broadcasting it, if for no other reason because its a taint by association.

Very enlightening.<p>Better to learn on <i>others</i> mistakes.

When two immature people get together to form a business.

Nice ending.