CROWDFUNDING SYSTEMS: evaluation and government regulation in the conditions of reengineering

Scientists D. Husieva and N. Malykhin ( Ƚɭɫɽɜɚ et al., 2014) describe the advantages, disadvantages, and risks of using crowdfunding. O. Chulanova ( ɑɭɥɚɧɨɜɚ , 2017) considers crowdrecruiting and crowd- funding as promising tools of the organization's recruitment system. M. Balykhin and A. Generalova ( Ȼɚɥɵɯɢɧ et al., 2015) suggest using crowdfunding to support scientific research and science in general. It is worth noting that different scientists identify different essential features in the interpretation of the «crowdfunding» concept. Yes, some researchers consider financial characteristics to be the first and most important among such characteristics (Bayus, 2013; Kuppuswamy et al., 2015, 2016; Kleeman et al., 2008; Agrawal et al., 2011, 2015). Another group of scientists prioritizes crowdfunding as a means of marketing research, for example, M. Vukovic, L. Mariana, and J. Laredo (2009), ȿ . Mollick (2014). Ʉ . Miller, F. Fabian, and S.-J. Lin (2009) distinguish such a feature of the analyzed concept as an informational character. B. Hallen and K. Eisenhardt (2012), as well as F. Kleeman and colleagues (2008), highlight the managerial and social nature of crowdfunding (Table 1.1). Table 1.1 Features of interpretation of the concept of «crowdfunding» by particular scientists Essential features of the concept Kuppuswamy et al. Vukovic et al. Kleeman et al. Agraval et al. Gerber et al. Miller et al. Mollick Financial tool + + + + + + Marketing tool + + + + Information tool + + Management tool + + Social character + + + Note: formed by the authors based on sources (Kuppuswamy et al., 2014; Kleeman et al., 2008; Agrawal et al., 2011; Vukovic, 2009; Mollick, 2014; Miller et al., 2009); «+» — identification of a key essential feature by individual scientists 17