眾籌作為一種具備可行性的籌資方式，已被證明能以不同方式靈活運(yùn)作以適應(yīng)本土文化偏好。打個(gè)比方，在美國，眾籌被看做是一種民主工具，它使得所有投資者能夠進(jìn)入在過去80年一直將他們拒之門外的私人市場；然而，在中國大陸，眾籌是行業(yè)的新來者，人們對眾籌的反響卻大為不同。中國眾籌市場，對資產(chǎn)類別的投資訴求并不明晰。相反，中國兩大領(lǐng)先眾籌網(wǎng)站鼓勵(lì)的是眾籌所能提供的創(chuàng)新和社會(huì)效應(yīng)。事實(shí)上，其中一家網(wǎng)站甚至把自己比作團(tuán)購網(wǎng)或者預(yù)售零售公司，盡管它的創(chuàng)意來自Kickstarter，而非一個(gè)眾籌門戶。

Crowdfinancing, as a viable means to raise capital, has proven adept at taking on different forms in order to adapt to local cultural preferences. For instance, in the United States, crowdfinancing is promoted as a democratizing instrument, allowing all investors access to the private markets from which they had been precluded for the last 80 years; however, the appeal of crowdfinacing in mainland China, which is a relative newcomer to the industry, is seen quite differently. The investment appeal of the asset class is not made as apparent. Instead, the two leading sites in China encourage the innovation and societal benefits that crowdfinancing can provide. In fact, one of the sites likened itself more to Groupon or a presale retail company, despite its inspiration from Kickstarter, rather than a crowdfinancing portal.

這個(gè)現(xiàn)象與中美這兩個(gè)全球最大的經(jīng)濟(jì)體的巨大文化差異是一致的，這種文化差異也影響了眾籌的實(shí)踐方式。比如，美國的捐獻(xiàn)文化是很多類型的眾籌的主要前提，而中國并沒有那樣的捐獻(xiàn)文化。同時(shí)，在中國，管理眾籌行業(yè)的規(guī)定少之又少，以至于即便是主要的眾籌門戶，在宣傳行業(yè)和項(xiàng)目的時(shí)候也是謹(jǐn)慎為先。舉個(gè)例子，一個(gè)眾籌網(wǎng)站很可能不接受概念，轉(zhuǎn)而要求需以產(chǎn)品為主要的交付，方能通過該門戶籌集資金。這種做法減少了一個(gè)項(xiàng)目的投機(jī)性，很是迎合中國投資者的現(xiàn)實(shí)性。此外，在中國，不只一家網(wǎng)站會(huì)在眾籌項(xiàng)目失敗的情況下給投資者退款。除了上述理由以外，對于并不滿足于投資增值的中國投資者，這又是眾籌富有吸引力的一個(gè)原因。

This corresponds with the large cultural differences between the world’s two largest economies, which has an impact on how crowdfinancing is conducted. For instance, China does not have the same donation culture as the U.S., which is a central premise of certain types of crowdfunding. Also, there are very few rules to govern this industry, which leads the main crowdfunding portal to exercise caution in promoting the industry and its projects. For example, a website may decide not to accept concepts, but rather insist that a product is a majority of the way completed before it allows for it to solicit funds through its portal. This reduces the speculative aspect of a project and appeals to the practical nature of Chinese investors. Additionally, at least one website will refund capital to every fundraiser in the event that a campaign is unable to fulfill its promises. This is attractive to Chinese investors who, in addition to the aforementioned reasons, are not content to receive simple tokens of appreciation for their investment.

然而，兩國眾籌也不無相似之處。比如，一些公司通過在眾籌平臺(tái)籌資的一些外圍收益來支持這種籌資方式。盡管好的創(chuàng)意能得到天使投資者的大筆資金，但是通過眾籌，一個(gè)項(xiàng)目能得到更多觀點(diǎn)和意見作為參考來開發(fā)自己更好的產(chǎn)品。總的來說，通過大眾籌資在中國大陸是個(gè)萌芽觀念。盡管中央政府具體的法律仍未出爐，人們?nèi)栽诜e極探索推廣這種融資方式的最好方法；但是，基于行業(yè)和政府都在鼓勵(lì)技術(shù)創(chuàng)新，特別是在文化貿(mào)易方面，不少人看好眾籌，相信它的發(fā)展會(huì)更好。

However, that does not mean that there are not some similarities. For instance, some companies advocate for this type of fundraising given the tangential benefits of raising capital through these platforms. While great ideas may be able to secure ample funds from the angel community, through the crowd, a project can garner a larger pool of opinions and suggestions in order to develop a better product before its launch. Overall, raising capital from the crowd is a nascent concept in mainland China. People are still experimenting with the best way to promote this type of financing in the absence of specific laws from the central government; however, many are optimistic that it will continue to develop unhindered by the state, given how both the industry and the government seek to encourage technological innovation, particularly in cultural trades.