Crowdcube request to change Investor Nominee Terms

(4 Round Investor) #208

If it’s about improving terms you could have issued a request to change terms

But to add the we might charge you fees isn’t clear what type of fee an admin or a carry fee such as seedrs.

Surely the shareholding vote of the VC and founders far outweigh the crowd so therefore when articles need to be changed they can vote this through with sufficient vote Percentage therefore the crowd votes don’t account for much

  • Are the votes recorded and counted by Crowdcube? Or is this outsourced?

  • If you wanted uniformity of terms between the last round, and previous investors then why not just move the last round investors to the old terms?

  • Can you provide better examples of how these changes benefit the investors?

  • The voting page mentions better protection. Are you suggesting the nominee representing the shares currently isn’t a regulated entity?

(Ben Bagley) #210

I haven’t received anything either, actually stumbling onto this forum thread is the first I’m hearing of these changes.

(Adam) #211

Did you invest in rounds 1 or 2? The later rounds all have the above terms.

(Ben Bagley) #212

The most recent round, even if we are already bound by the terms, communication and clarity has been pretty poor on both sides it seems.

(Adam) #213

Communication from Crowdcube has indeed been poor to affected investors. I don’t see Monzo getting involved any more than they already have as the contract is between Crowdcube and the affect investors and not Monzo.

(Kevyn) #214

In fairness to Crowdcube, you are already bound to these terms and you should know them because you signed up to them in December and obviously read them then carefully before you bought your shares. I’m in the same boat as you.


I think my mqin concern is what happens to our shares if Crowdcube goes bust ?


I don’t think the nominee can go bust - it’s a separate entity which just holds shares - it doesn’t operate a business, so it would never make a profit or loss.


Crowdcube could though and then a third party could control the nominee

(adam) #218

It seems CrowdCube have had sufficient time to reveal any positive reasons I’d vote yes but thus far all the upside seems to be for them and downside for myself and other 1st & 2nd round investors.

This is a :poop: with a ribbon bow. And a “no” from me.

CrowdCube could learn a thing or two from Monzo’s openness and transparency in how this could have been handled better. If they were honest and said “we screwed up our original agreement and here’s how… “ I’d be far more sympathetic.

As it is, they’ve lost my trust and I don’t think I would invest my money through them in future.

(Colin Robinson) #219

Time to switch to seedrs and dozens.


To be fair, it sounds like Monzo were working very closely with CrowdCube on the communication of this (and the terms obviously), so I think it’s another lesson for both of the companies.

(James) #221

I voted no with 3154 shares, my brother is also voting no with 2800. Hopefully that helps!

(Ben Bagley) #222

I read them sure but I’m more on about investors affected :slight_smile:


3154 shares! Impressive stuff


This is why I asked what happens to our shares if crowdcube goes bust - they still run the nominee account and it’s not a charity so has to be commercially viable to exist


Yes but the nominee account still has to be run by crowdcube -no crowd cube no nominee.

If another company takes over as nominee and we have approved charges without knowing what they are and that they can take action on our behalf and use our shares to cover fraud loses we are left at the mercy of the new nominee.

I understand crowdcube wanting to charge for additional services as they have to cover costs but without knowing pricing it’s no from me

(Jamie 🏳️‍🌈) #226

The way it reads to me, Monzo, whilst agreeing in principle to the changes, hasn’t said much at all, so as not to be criticised for appearing to influence a vote between two other contracted parties.

It looks like it’s left CrowdCube to fuck up all by itself, but that doesn’t reflect well on a company so entrenched in transparency.

Just goes to show how one company’s reputation can ride on another’s actions.


I could understand if Monzo couldn’t/didn’t want to say anything before hand.

But given “how closely” they’ve been working (which both Monzo and CC say), I would have expected some form of communication from Monzo as soon as the email from CC went out, even if that was to say “we’ll be in touch as soon as we can”.

If I’m being a little high maintenance, I’d have expected the Q and A from CC to be arranged immediately to answer the obvious questions.

That’s possibly an expectation based on past experience of Monzo dealing with these kind of things.

They’ve previously set the bar pretty high, so anything short of excellent will look poor.

CC definitely haven’t done anything to make people feel warm and fuzzy, and like you said, Monzo have been harmed by association (although, I don’t actually see many negative feelings towards Monzo on the back of this).