CC BY
7DOI: 10.29141/2658-5081-2023-24-3-3 EDN: SFIFTM JEL classification: G23, P51, G32
Sergey V. Khmura Amur State University, Amur Region Investment Promotion
Agency, Blagoveshchensk, Russia
Vilena A. Yakimova Amur State University, Blagoveshchensk, Russia
Crowdfunding platforms in Russia: Methodological tools for agents' investment decision-making
Abstract. Modern conditions brought forth digital investment platforms, which have offered new possibilities of raising capital by entrepreneurs. The paper aims to rank these platforms to meet the information and analytical needs of agents in investment decision-making. Methodologically, the paper relies on the ecosystem approach, as well as propositions of digital, collaborative and platform economics. The paper applies the methods of grade rating, coefficient and correlation analysis. The evidence comes from public reports on investment activities of 68 crowdfunding platform operators and other information available on their websites. To rank the platforms, the study considers the factors related to investment activity (competitiveness, market activity, scaling up, etc.) and risks (financial insolvency, credit and litigation risks, etc.) and then designs a method for a rating-based assessment of investment activity and risks. The paper provides a multivariate assessment of investment activity and risks including systemic ones and specific for certain types of crowdfunding. The study presents the ranking of 68 crowdfunding platforms, identifies types of platforms according to the criteria "investment activity - risks", as well as the criteria of security of investment (Co-Fi, Peers.money, Potok.Digital, InveStore, InvestGO) and association with a high risk. The method can be useful for investors and borrowers to justify their financial decisions; for the Bank of Russia to perform control and supervision procedures; and for professional community to outline directions for the development and promotion of the crowdfunding in Russia.
Keywords: crowdfunding; digital ecosystem; risks of digital platforms; entrepreneurial ecosystem; digital economy; investment risks.
Acknowledgements: The paper is funded by the grant of the Russian Science Foundation no. 23-28-00044 on the topic "Conceptual model of regional entrepreneurial ecosystem in conditions of digital environment" (https://rscf.ru/project/23-28-00044/). For citation: Khmura S. V., Yakimova V. A. (2023). Crowdfunding platforms in Russia: Methodological tools for agents' investment decision-making. Journal of New Economy, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 46-73. DOI: 10.29141/2658-5081-2023-24-3-3. EDN: SFIFTM.
Article info: received May 16, 2023; received in revised form June 13, 2023; accepted June 26, 2023
Introduction
The Bank of Russia's financial strategy focuses on increasing the availability of financial services and the speed of servicing entrepreneurs using digital technologies and platforms. The national programme "Digital economy of the Russian Federation" and the Strategy for the development of small and medium-sized enterprises (approved by the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation no. 1083-r) have prioritised the development of digital investment platforms on which new forms of interaction between economic actors in the digital environment will emerge. The adoption of the Law on attracting investments using investment platforms no. 259-FZ in Russia in 2019 became the starting point for the evolvement of the crowdfunding market in Russia. There are currently 68 digital investment platforms on the market listed in the Bank of Russia Register.
The development of crowdfunding is driven by state support for small and medium-sized enterprises in the form of subsidies to cover costs when using collective investment schemes, information and consulting activities and the improvement of financial literacy. At the same time, the difficult external economic situation, low confidence in new financial mechanisms, and high risks for platform participants are inhibiting factors. In order to make informed decisions in such conditions, companies and investors need analytical information that allows them both to evaluate investment opportunities and platform activity, and to predict the probability of financial losses in conditions of uncertainty and risk.
Several approaches are described in the scientific literature to reveal the characteristics and possibilities of different types of crowdfunding (crowdinvesting, crow-drewarding, crowdlending) and the corresponding financial conditions [Ezangina, Evstratov, 2019; Starodubtseva, Medvedeva, 2021]. To our knowledge, not enough attention is paid to the issue of selecting investment strategies and developing information and methodological support that define criteria and indicators for evaluating the activities of digital platforms that allow actual and potential participants to make informed investment decisions.
The subject of the study is the economic relationships formed between economic agents in transactions to attract, receive, collect and distribute investments on a digital platform.
The purpose of the study is to form a ranking of digital investment platforms to meet the information and analytical needs of agents in making investment decisions. Therefore, to achieve this purpose, our objectives can be formulated as follows:
- to assess the economic nature of digital investment platforms from the perspective of an ecosystem approach;
- to develop a rating-based assessment method that enables borrowers and investors to make financial decisions;
- to create rankings of crowdlending and crowdinvesting platforms, evaluate current investment activities and identify possible risks.
Digital investment platforms: Theoretical approaches
The economic nature of crowdfunding platforms is revealed from the perspective of the concept "crowdfunding" (collective financing), the ecosystem approach and the conceptual postulates of the platform, collaborative and digital economics.
Crowdfunding is "a way of raising funds to finance projects of individuals and organisations on an irrevocable debt or equity basis, under a non-investment or investment model, from an unlimited number of individuals and organisations through dedicated online platforms" [Yatsenko, 2019, p. 64]. As an innovative financing tool, crowdfunding allows "accumulating financial resources by a significant number of participants for the implementation of innovative, social, commercial, political, environmental, personal and business projects using specialised Internet resources for a specific financial, material or non-material reward" [Duk, Dzhamaldinova, 2016, p. 32] (see also: [Starodubtseva, Medvedeva, 2021]). Therefore, crowdfunding definitions emphasise financial relationships and tools for attracting investment in projects. The main function of digital platforms in implementing the financial mechanism is ensuring the availability of financial services to meet the businesses' needs in sources of financing.
Crowdlending is a form of crowdfunding that allows one to attract investments for business projects under a loan agreement. However, the distinguishing features are sharing of benefits that arise on the platform. From the standpoint of the collaborative economics, crowdfunding is "a form of collective investment schemes in which investors provide funds to finance various projects through the intermediary of investment platforms" [Papascua, 2021, p. 80]. Sharing resources and extracting value from digital information on a website make it necessary to meet the information needs of an unlimited number of interested parties [Barilenko, 2020]. The digital platform model involves the exchange of goods and services between individuals and organisations looking to increase efficiency and optimise resources.
The literature pertaining to platform economics theory consider the crowdfund-ing platform as an intermediary in shaping relationships between economic agents. A digital investment platform is an information system on the Internet that, using technologies and technical means, concludes contracts based on which investments are attracted [Savaley, 2021, p. 58]. The investment platform is "a website with advanced
services to facilitate remote digital transactions by investors" [Matytsin, 2021, p. 127] (see also: [Russkova, Chaykina, Chaykin, 2019]).
The architecture of the digital platform consists of a complex of devices, services and technologies, interfaces, a form of relationship for transmission, exchange of resources and coordination of actions [Mclntyre, Srinivasan, 2017; Ablyazov, Asaturova, Koscheyev, 2018]. The platform operator develops rules and conditions for the interaction of the participants and their use of resources to create value. New digital technologies, in turn, enable high-speed processing of data and transactions in real time, a close relationship between the producer and the consumer of the service [Gianluca, Margherita, Passiante, 2020]. The service friendliness and customer orientation of the platform are its important distinctive advantages [Rabetino et al. 2018; Parida, Sjodin, Reim, 2019]. Platforms develop a "unified customer profile" by integrating customer information and needs to develop targeted offers. The platform can help in starting a new business, and promoting investment projects and services.
The platform business model is a hub and spoke model, with many peripheral companies connected to a central platform. This implies the importance of network effects and the contribution of each platform agent in creating added economic value for the consumer [Motovilov, 2018; Pushpananthan, Elmquist, 2021]. Through network effects, you can quickly build up a customer base and retain customers over the long term. Digital platforms rely on the paradigm of creating new opportunities and favourable conditions for the interaction of participants and the exchange of information between them through the use of digital technologies and infrastructure. The characteristics of the platforms also include the effects of economies of scale, synergy effects, self-organisation, autonomy, sociality, adaptability, information content, in-frastructural flexibility [Acs et al., 2017; Senyo, Effah, Liu, 2017; Cozzolino, Corbo, Aversa, 2021].
From the standpoint of the ecosystem approach, crowdfunding platforms are capable of creating digital services and tools for interaction between agents throughout the entrepreneurial process [Gianluca, Margherita, Passiante, 2020]. A digital platform as an ecosystem is "a self-organising, sustainable system with digital platforms at the base, which form a single information environment where the members of the ecosystem can interact when no hard functional ties between them exist" [Barykin et al., 2020, p. 3] (see also: [Toh, 2021; Tretyakova, Freyman, 2022]).
By digital investment platform we mean an information system with digital technologies and services, on the basis of which economic relationships are established between investors, borrowers, the operator and other actors of the entrepreneurial ecosystem for the implementation of the crowdfunding mechanism. Other representatives should include regulators and development institutions, represented by the Bank of Russia and the Ministry of Digital Development, Communications and Mass
Media of the Russian Federation, the Federal Tax Service, and the Institute for Self-Regulation - the Association of Investment Platform Operators. The Bank of Russia grants the operator permission to conduct financial transactions on the investment platform, monitors compliance with financial legislation.
In the platform ecosystem, relationships are established between the investor, the borrower and the operator, in which contract terms are accepted, information about projects and investment proposals are published. Financial flows provide for the accumulation of funds in a special account, the transfer of income to the investor and the repayment of debt by the borrower [Mikhaylyuk, Chinazirova, Kostenko, 2020]. The platform operator carries out procedures for monitoring the consumption of resources and the fulfillment of obligations, and distributes the financial flows. The platform contains information on the participants' powers and functions, the assessment and approach to risk sharing and income generation, and the provision of documents. With the help of digital tools, the project is evaluated, the borrower's creditworthiness is checked, automated investing transactions are executed, and profitability indices are calculated.
With plenty of opportunities, transactions on a digital platform are characterised by the presence of risks that affect the sustainability of economic development [Logi-nov, Nikiforova, 2021; Lyubushin et al., 2021; Efimova, 2023]. In terms of frequency and importance, the most significant are legal, regulatory, creditworthiness, reputa-tional and litigation risks, as well as the risks of illegal activities and unauthorised access by third parties. It is worth pointing out the information risks associated with obtaining incomplete information and lack of transparency. Incomplete and unreliable information published on the platform leads to losses, poor business reputation of the platform, customer churn and initiatives to support projects. Since participants use electronic document management, payment failures are likely to be due to lack of access to payment systems, unstable Internet operation, theft of funds or documents as a result of unauthorised access to data in electronic form.
The risks posed by losing funds due to cybercrime on digital platforms become the most significant in terms of consequences. Participants in transactions may incur losses related to the illegal organisation of financial pyramids, failure to fulfill contractual obligations, misuse of funds, or loss of rights to a digital asset. There is a high possibility of unauthorised use of the EDS or loss of its key, resulting in the inability to sign the document and fail to complete a transaction.
Unscrupulous behaviour of participants in digital investment ecosystems leads to reputational risks, which reduces trust in crowdfunding in general and new financial tools. Also to be considered are the high political and legal risks arising from the imperfection of legislation and the resolution of financial disputes. The shortcomings of the legal system lead to a high probability of litigation, the consequences of which
are manifested in the delay in conducting financial transactions, the postponement of lawsuits, the high cost of identifying the debtor, as well as the increase in fines and penalties. Table 1 systematises the results of the analysis of the opportunities and risks of the crowdfunding platform for the main agents of the ecosystem.
Table 1. Opportunities and risks of agents in the digital investment ecosystem
Ecosystem agents Opportunities Risks
State Reallocating investments to priority areas that need more financial support, lowering the costs of the banking system, synchronising relationships between economic agents, implementing startups and policies for the development of small and medium-sized businesses, supporting projects in the social sector and charity Fraud and abuse, cyber attacks, pyramid schemes, unlicensed activities, direct deception of consumers
Investors Diversification and investment of several projects at the same time, investment of a small amount, simplicity of contractual relationships, savings on intermediaries, standardisation of relationships, higher return on investment, flexibility of a digital tool and the ability to build your own financial strategy using profitability calculation Loss of invested funds and investment income due to defaults and non-repayment of funds by borrowers, borrower credit risk due to ineffective valuation and bankruptcy, lack of financial monitoring
Borrowers Marketing and other measures to promote the project and startup, reducing formal procedures compared to bank lending, disseminating information about the project on social networks, higher speed of collection of funds, efficiency of provision and verification of documents, establishing a good reputation for the project, the possibility of obtaining a loan if there is insufficient creditworthiness, but there is a good entrepreneurial idea and business plan, the speed of receiving funds, building a customer base and looking for business partners, ranking the project on the platform and increasing their competitiveness or public review Exploitation of a non-proprietary project idea by unscrupulous platform participants. Failure of the pool when the project has not received the necessary funds or investors refuse to invest funds after appropriate decision
Platform operator Easy income generation and scale growth due to compliance with laws, easy promotion of financial services through digital technologies, possibility to receive government support The imbalance of inflows and outflows of funds of the platform, operational risks and risks of technical failures
Source: Own representation based on [Ksenofontov, 2017; Ezangina, Evstratov, 2019; Mikhaylyuk, Chi-nazirova, Kostenko, 2020; Papaskua, 2021; Popov, Veretennikova, Fedoreev, 2021; Savaley, 2021; Shan-gina, 2021; Korolev, 2022].
The high-risk nature of digital platforms therefore signals the need to develop information and methodological support for evaluating their activities.
Method for a rating-based assessment of crowdfunding platforms
We distinguish between the two types of crowdfunding and propose a method for assessing investment activity and risks, which allows comparing platforms' performance. The information basis for the risk assessment was public information available on digital investment platforms listed in the Register of Operators of Digital Financial Asset Exchanges of the Bank of Russia. This information includes the rules of the platform and the procedure for its operation, the range of services and activities, accounting reporting, operator reports and other financial information that enables assessment. A set of indicators for assessing investment activity and sources of information on these indicators are presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Indicators for assessing investment activity and performance of digital investment platforms
Indicator Source of information
Quantitative indicators
Ii Volume of attracted investments, million rubles Report of the digital investment platform operator
I2 Growth rate of attracted investments, %
I3 Number of investment proposals, units
I4 Growth rate of the number of investment proposals, %
I5 Efficiency of the operator of the digital investment platform, %
I6 Total number of investors on the platform, units
I7 Growth rate of investors on the platform, %
Is Growth rate of the profitability of the core activities, % Accounting reporting of the digital investment platform operator
I9 Efficiency of using the equity of the operator of the digital investment platform, %
I10 Growth rate of return on equity, %
Indicators scored in points
I11 Openness and transparency of information about transactions, annual reports, rules, efficiency of spending of investment funds, information about projects and their calculation of profitability (0 - no information; 2.5 - mandatory information is published; 5 - additional information, algorithms and procedures, video instructions, information on investment projects are posted) Website of the digital investment platform
I12 Confirmation of published financial information (0 - there is no audit report; 5 - the audit report is published on the website)
I13 Competitiveness and breadth of service offerings (0 the absence of additional services in digital form; 2.5 a standard list of financial services; 5 a wide range of digital services for clients (automated investing, collection and assignment, etc.))
I14 Market activity (0 - lack of income; 2.5 - low income and assets; 5 - high market share, growth of income and assets) Accounting reporting of the digital investment platform operator
Table 3 provides a list of indicators by type of risk assessed, including general indicators applicable to all types of platforms and specific indicators required to assess crowdlending platforms.
Table 3. Indicators for assessing risks of digital investment platforms' investors
Type of risk Source of information
General indicators
Quantitative indicators
Ri Risk of financial insolvency due to the reduction in equity and the exclusion of the operator from the register (assessment of the growth rate of equity) Accounting reports of the digital investment platform operator
R2 Risk of insolvency of the digital investment platform operator (current liquidity ratio)
R3 Litigation risk (amounts in court proceedings, rubles) Counterparty verification and analysis service Rusprofile
R4 Risk of insufficient experience in financial transactions due to the short lifespan of the platform on the market (0 - more than 5 years; 2.5 - from 2 to 5 years; 5 - less than 2 years)
Indicators scored in points
R5 Risk due to lack of experience and practice in providing financial services (0 - crowdfunding is an additional type of activity; 5 -crowdfunding is the only and most important type of activity) Website of the digital investment platform
R6 Risk of transactions depending on the type of digital platform (0 -P2B, B2B; 2.5 - P2B; 5 - P2P)
R7 Risk of making a wrong sole decision by management (0 - a large number of founders; organisations are included in the founders; 2.5 - one or two founders are natural persons; 5 - one founder)
Rs Risk of deterioration of the company's reputation (0 - the partners include state authorities, administrative and regional funding bodies; 2.5 - multiple partners (1-2); 5 - no partners)
R9 Risk of not achieving the level of returns on investments (0 - the level of returns is lower or in line with the market (the Central Bank's key rate + 2.5-7.5 %); 2.5 - increased level of returns (the Central Bank's key rate + 12.5-17.5 %); 5 - inflated interest rates of the expected rate of return (the Central Bank's key rate + 17,5 % and higher))
R10 Risk of investors' ignorance of high-risk transactions (0 - publication of a risk statement, a high-risk strategy; 2.5 - publication of a risk statement; 5 - a low-risk strategy and no risk statement on the website)
Specific indicators to assess crowdlending platforms
Quantitative indicators
R11 Credit risk (risk of losing invested funds due to inefficiency of the project) the ratio of the number of outstanding contracts to the number of investment proposals Report of the digital investment platform operator
R12 Credit risk (the ratio of the amount of outstanding commitments to the total amount of funds borrowed)
Table 3 (concluded)
Type of risk Source of information
Indicators scored in points
R13 Risk of borrower credit assessment inefficiency (0 - automatic scoring ranking is applied; 2.5 - simple scoring methods are used; 5 - scoring is not applied)
Rl4 The risk of overstating or understating the interest rate on loans (0 -high level of interest rate (the Central Bank's key rate + 17.5 % and higher); 2.5 - neutral interest rate level (the Central Bank's key rate + 12.5-17.5 %); 5 - the interest rate level is low (the Central Bank's key rate + 2.5-7.5 %)) Website of the digital investment platform
Rl5 Document requirements for borrowers (0 - a large list of necessary documents, detailed instructions; 2.5 - a small amount of documents; 5 - lack of a list of necessary documents)
To perform the aggregation procedure and reduce the estimated indicators to a single measurement scale, we use the SPSS software, which allowed us to standardise and rank quantitative and qualitative indicator estimates. An informed decisionmaking should be based on a comparison of the results of the assessment of the investment activity and the risks of the platforms.
Rating-based assessment of crowdfunding platforms
In 2021, 9.06 billion rubles of investments were attracted in Russia with the help of crowdlending, and 4.74 billion rubles with the help of crowdinvesting. As shown in Figure 1, crowdfunding popularity has been increasing since the second quarter of 2022.
c
<u
1 a
o rt >H
In
c o
a j=>
1.78
0.07
Q2 Q3 Q4 2022
Crowdlending Crowdinvesting Fig. 1. Attracted investment by type of digital platforms, 2021-20221
1 Source: Figures 1-2 are based on data of the Bank of Russia. http://www.cbr.ru/. (In Russ.)
Crowdlending is the most sought after as it is a mechanism to fund the ongoing expenses of any company or start-up, i.e., fast-growing business, provided the depositor has stable financial flows and financial standing. The crowdinvesting sector in Russia is less developed, services are provided by two or three companies acting as professional participants in the securities market. Figure 2 shows statistics indicating an increase in the number of investors on digital platforms.
g 30,000
2 624
| ^ 25,000 51? —
1 | g 20'00° 629 -
3 g B 15,000 -655-358,^—'
2 | 10,000 —4oi—J^mF- llrHf"
1 5,000 fir'^M-^-S7 fl* I
5 0| «HI , ■ 1 1 U U i B
I II III IV I II III IV
2021 2022
Natural persons ■ Legal persons Fig. 2. Number of active investors on digital platforms, 2021-2022
Active investors are natural persons who make decisions independently, using their knowledge and analytical skills, usually without special training. Small and medium-sized companies accounted for 68.7 % of the volume of funding raised. 70 % of active crowdfunding participants are small and medium-sized enterprises. The most attractive projects for financing are the ones in trade and catering, transport services and construction.
The stimulating factors for the development of digital ecosystems are the support of partners, banks, assistance in the field of standardisation by the Association of DIP Operators and diversification of financial services. According to the 2021 data, investors returned an average of 15 %. When selecting investment proposals, operators make a relatively strict selection and reject about 50 %. Nevertheless, investment projects are provided with the required minimum amount. Figure 3 shows the investment volume and the number of investment proposals, which allows us to judge on the size of the platforms.
In 2021 and 2022, according to the volume of funds raised and investment proposals, three frontrunners are named - Potok.Digital, Jetlend, VDelo - focusing on crowdlending services and lending to companies to replenish working capital, fund current expenses and government orders in accordance with laws with no. 44-FZ and 222-FZ. In 2022, these platforms accounted for 67 % of investments and 74 % of investment proposals. Their competitive advantages are the transparency of information on the website, the offer of digital services, a positive company reputation and
G a>
S« cu
«1
y ^
■S e
1? ° £ 3 ?» S
5,000 4,500 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0
« 3,608 l
K654
too 641 424 405
349
61 1715 15^52 6
13
1 1
13 9
.tí ™c y
S g
39
4 9 46 7 2 5 73 1 1 46 5 1
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
M
0
1
S Sb h o;<
a g
2.9
1—1 l-l +J
C/3
"«Sew S
8 a al
o1
ph g
sa
t—i o on o
F
peí
O [tí
•S3
F
cr>
W >
»7 » tí ¿i ¡u"^ C W B c Ï
iii au
s o 5
IjS
>-, <a ít1 i u JH <U
2 § S«
'5bF c g p<5 a
c o c _
2 « ¡u
e s¿ §u
S
at
¡*¡
á
60 u Pí
13 a o
■a
¡U
ts-s
iiisfc
8 0 tiP o g 0.3
s
5-5b
I—l O)
a*
tJD
tí
<u
S a
to tí
I *
.5 "
o "
ui <u
I
o
Oh O
>H
Oh
Attracted investment — Number of investment proposals
Fig. 3. Distribution of investment attracted by crowdfunding platforms, 20221
attractiveness due to economies of scale. The Potok.Digital website uses a unique scoring system consisting of more than 300 factors to assess the borrower's credit risk, which makes the ranking mechanisms more reliable for ecosystem participants. The advantage of the VDelo platform is support in building partnerships and finding customers using the regional center "My Business".
Factors hampering the development of digital platforms include economic instability and growth in inflation expectations. These economic trends led to a cash outflow from the platforms and an increase in overdue debts in 2021 (Figure 4). The amount of this debt on the crowdfunding market in 2021 amounted to 537 million rubles. In 2022, there was an increase in overdue debt with a default duration of more than 91 days.
In the period 2021-2022, 6 operators were excluded from the Operator Register of the Bank of Russia. The reasons for the increasing instability of digital platforms are the imperfections of borrower screening and ranking systems, the inadequacies in scoring and in the initial stages of the platforms, leading to risks for ecosystem agents.
The proposed set of indicators was tested on 68 existing digital platforms (the list of platforms with indication of their websites is given in Appendix 1). The results are presented in Figure 5.
1 Source: Own representation based on the 2021-2022 reports on the activities of operators of digital investment platforms.
m m \o s o o o o o
oo o\ o
O O ^H
OOOOOOOOO^H
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
2021
Overdue debts: 1-30 days 30-90 days
— Average share of overdue debt,
2022
million rubles
More than 90 days
Fig. 4. Overdue debt as a risk factor for investors due to borrower defaults1
ni
^ s
a-* o'B
"s s
i-J rr* I rp< m
H
S o
a №
40.0
o S « S 2"«3 ^^ S §
Points ssiiSgSáSllálSli
M JJ ¡J5
■ w fe-OîS
QJ C tn ■' HH i—H—I
fe.a.siHj« ' ° s-a g«
geoïs " a ââ^^papaapaO&H
Fig. 5. Rating-based assessment of investment activity of crowdlending platforms
Only about half of the registered platforms are active, with Potok.Digital, Jetlend, Money Friends and InvestGO showing the best performance. In 2022, the number of transactions on the Jetlend, STATUS Invest and InvestGO platforms increased compared to the previous year. The Potok.Digital platform has the largest number
1 Source: Own illustration based on data of the Bank of Russia. http://www.cbr.ru/. (In Russ.)
of investment offers. Leading platforms are being developed through small business lending, support from banks and the Association of DIP Operators, integrated assessment mechanisms and comprehensive project marketing tools. Investment platforms established by microcredit organisations or commercial banks offer great financial opportunities, practical experience and high image. For example, the development of the investment platform VDelo is facilitated by the support of the regional center My Business, which ensures confidence in the digital platform, since it is difficult for potential clients to independently assess the profitability of new platforms and understand their performance.
e
o U
c o
Fig. 6. Rating-based assessment of investment activity of crowdinvesting platforms
As a rule, crowdinvesting platforms are created by professional securities market participants (registrars), and crowdinvesting is another form of service. Securities are issued for a closed group of people, and issuers are large companies that want to expand the scope of their activities and increase their equity in order to maintain a stable situation. The volume of funds raised via crowdinvesting platforms is lower compared to loans. The number of created platforms is 19, which is double that of crowdlending. In addition, 8 of them are actively doing business. Unlike lending, raising funds through business incorporation is quite a complicated procedure and operators choose to work with a target audience consisting of regular customers. In 2022, the most successful investment platform was Rounds, with VTB Registrar and SIMPLE ESTATE seeing the most growth. Professional participants in the securities market have stable financial indicators and professional competence, can reduce investors' risks and increase the profitability of the investor's portfolio. Figure 7 shows the results of the risk assessment of digital crowdlending platforms.
g .o
o«
<¡i7-<
§ >; H Bkh»^
llalldl^
Té £
■s S > 1) 0)
í O
o jg
3
o
s.
: «
>-<
H 2 O
PLi
S
es "Bh
S
<u
s
+-»
C/5 l
a
l>
S
si s Sy s« Points glgfi-^iu
oí 2
•SáJ^ls^ I
30.00
¡30 i>
Q CsuMHgÏHUîo P-i <5 «U1-1 SH
laislsliaêllllllsidlilllllllllllôl
i
U -H
S S« bS
S SR Otí
a^'S'Si'
i-i M o u .2H ■g1^ ta u tí > S
MHI-HFHFHFHMIH
Ph G
a ti
i s a
u
S
W
I
-tiwru
UH^S
25.00 l^^tsotsNcfïffits
10.00 5.00 0.00
Of^Q
Fig. 7. Rating-based risk assessment of crowdlending platforms
The sources of risk are non-compliance by the borrower with the terms of the loan agreement due to an incorrect assessment of the borrower's solvency. The financial consequence is a decrease in the investor's income and an increase in legal costs.
The riskiest platforms are Penenza, Crowd Money, Terrace Invest, MD Finance due to the high risk of non-compliance with obligations. Financial risks arise from unstable financial conditions, annual losses leading to a reduction in equity, cash and debt imbalances. Debt accumulation factors and consequent litigation are the cause of inefficient financial management and control processes. Unfulfilled obligations turn out to be a consequence of the strategy of expanding the scope of activities and taking on risky clients. Possible reasons also lie in exaggerated advertising and placement of information on websites about how scoring systems work, which in reality are not that effective.
There is a high risk for beginners and underdeveloped platforms since there is a tendency to a fall in investment offers and loss of reputation in the market. As the dynamics assessment showed, significant investments in the previous period do not guarantee the stability of the platform in the future. The litigation risk is assessed to be high, which is characterised by a large number of pending cases and the existence of unresolved obligations. Significant litigation risks go beyond individual platforms and become systemic, which is a negative factor.
Developing platforms are characterised by very significant risks of insufficient information transparency, corporate governance inefficiencies and high returns. These platforms adopt a strategy of minimising the information on the website but
confusing customers with high profitability, which is unjustified and ineffective. The risk of a bad reputation of the company due to the lack of partnerships for promotion and popularisation, as well as the risk of ignorance of customers due to the lack of risk declarations on the website are becoming increasingly important.
The most risky are the activities of limited liability companies Atomlnvest (high risk of financial bankruptcy), InvoiceCafe (risk of loss of company reputation), National Investment Platform, Platform N 1 and Penenza (risk of failure to achieve profitability of investments and litigation risks), GETUP (the risk of bankruptcy and overstatement of the interest rate on loans).
The results of the risk assessment of crowdinvesting platforms are shown in Figure 8. Zorko has the highest risk score (13.35), EARC.ru (13.1) and Zapusk (12.2), which specialises in financing IT projects. The lowest risks are observed among professional participants in the securities market. The risk factor is the increase in litigation and the cost of carrying out cases under contractual obligations. For starting platforms, the level is higher than for active platforms, but lower than for crowdlend-ing platforms.
e
<u U
e o
Points
I 16
a à
3 fr
N
Pi
CO
I
bo
H
G O
'So u
nt p
ÍH
O
M <U Pi
IP
Ü CO
à ft fc
t3
n ■a pi m
H >
N
£ N co H
g
CO W
3
Ol
bC è
u
Pi
I
T3
£ a
pi H
c/3 W
S
H
c/3
W >
£
m
(X, co
U H
Oh
H
CO §
s ä p Ö
< o
s
a .a
Ph
T3 tí
o
Pi
4 0
ri S ^ "i iñ iñ ¡ñ 7Z " —:—-—.
S^^^-HONoCov^^ON^rfOèoàrî
ON
00
Qo
Fig. 8. Rating-based risk assessment of crowdinvesting platforms
Factors limiting the platforms' activities include high litigation risks, risk of inefficiency due to possible losses and low competitiveness in the market. A summary analysis of investment activity and risks made it possible to draw up an investor map (Figure 9), which will allow investors to choose an investment platform.
Table 4 shows the identified types of the platforms, Appendix 2 provides the results of the rating-based assessment.
The most profitable and safe group of platforms for an investor is "average risk level - high activity". This group include the platforms Co-Fi, Potok.Digital, etc. Successful investment platforms have a rigid selection system and reject about half of the investment proposals. The type of the unpopular platforms (average activity and
40.00
Potok.Digital q Jetlend
Money Friends Gorod Deneg
iviuiicy 11
35.00 -^gjOjjp*^-—|=<5rowd Money
Tnvpstnrv 9 ® Tochka Investment
co invesiory w ^ jut-) pinanCe
£ D STATUS Invest MU *inance •§ ,n nn _ ^ Peers.money _~ I * Penenza
^ 30-00 f~ Kolesnik. - 9 Platform N1 pTOW*-
3 investment Fair Finance Terrace Invest
* Lender-Invest © Lendly InveStore
1 25'°° Credit.Club ^ ^-t ¿west Atomlnvest— Talking
S IP Vdole INVESTMEN Karma Technolodgy
S ,, ~ , 1 KFinance Invest
5 onnn My Capital DTDC _ * ' InvestGate
| 2°-00 I -^^mGapita^^^c^^^^
~ Investra insight Investment Group National
NIP BitRussia Udalton investment
15.00 [- _Investme^tQliqJnvest_ platform
THFTWPT BIZMALL BARCLAY
inni^niNvji Financial Platform Operator Nibblelnvest FINANCE
of investment platform 10.00 L PRIORITY
18.00 20.00 22.00 24.00 26.00 28.00 30.00 32.00
Investment risk (R), points
Fig. 9. "Investment activity - investment risk" map of crowdlending platforms
Table 4. Types of crowdlending platforms
Investment activity (I)
Low Below average Average Above average High
1 - - - - -
Investment risk (R) Below average - - - - -
Average - - • 9 platforms: GETUP; IP Vdole; Insight Investment Group; Investra; BIZMALL Financial Platform; Credit.Club; THEDENGI; NIP (National Investment Platform); My Capital • 3 platforms: Fair Finance; Platform N 1; Kolesnik. investment • 5 plaforms: Co-Fi; Peers.money; Potok.Digital; Investory; InvestGO
Table 4 (concluded)
Investment activity (I)
Low Below Average Above average High
average
• • • O
2 platforms: 17 platforms: 7 platforms: 6 platforms:
Qliq Invest; National Investment Penenza; Crowd Money;
Operator of Platform; Terrace MD Finance;
investment BARCLAY FINANCE; Invest; Gorod Deneg;
g platform Talanlnvest; INCROWD; InveStore; VDelo;
'■fj % PRIORITY Nibblelnvest; KFinance FININ-K; Jetlend;
' SH g CO £ Invest; Karma Technolodgy; STATUS Money Friends
tu g O Atomlnvest; Udalton Invest;
-M CO Investment; InvestGate; Tochka
1 RIPE Capital ; InvoiceCafe; Investment;
INVESTMEN; BitRussia; StrizhInvest
Smart Invest; Lendly;
Lender-Invest
High - - - - -
above average risk) is selected due to the shortcomings in marketing and financial management. This type includes the largest group with 17 platforms and carries high financial risks associated with lack of income and unprofitability. A common risk factor over in the analysed period was the outflow of ecosystem agents due to corporate distrust of the high-risk financial system. The main average indicators for each group are presented in Table 5.
Table 5. Indicators characterising groups of crowdlending platforms
Ratio of risk R to investment activity I Volume of attracted investments in 2022, million rubles Number of investment proposals Total number of investors on the platform Number of outstanding contracts in 2022 Number of outstanding obligations in 2022, million rubles
Average - average 0.008 5 6 0 0
Average -above average 81.28 24 2,081.82 6 10.77
Average - high 4,902.06 4,119 8,292 38 64.3
Above average -below average 0 0 0 0 0
Above average -average 646.16 539 650 8 113.5
Above average -above average 1,092.1 1,447 1,297 80 21.89
Above average -high 5,732.8 2,709 21,418 73 153.67
Investors find the strategy "above average risk - high activity" attractive, that is, they focus on information about the number of transactions made on the platform. The more participants there are on the digital platform, the higher the trust in the operator. However, such strategies often turn out to be wrong.
The map for evaluating crowdinvesting platforms and their types are presented in Figure 10 and Table 6.
«5
s
O &
I
o ni
C
<u
I
17.00
15.00
13.00
11.00
9.00
7.00
5.00
Rounds INVEST.AOREESTR
Noviy Registrator
—:SIMPLE-E-STAT-E-
VTB Registrar
IRC-ROST
Finmuster
PTC.SPB DRAGA
RT-Registrar
e
Kvadrat
O
Registrator "Garant"
Interregional Registration Center Zapusk
ZAO-SRK NFK-Savings
MTS Zvezdy
_L
Zorko
EARC.ru
8
12
13
9 10 11
Investment risk (R), points
Fig. 10. "Investment activity - investment risk" map of crowdinvesting platforms
14
Table 6. Types of crowdinvesting platforms
Investment activity (I)
Low Below average Average Above average High
s o - - - - -
Below average - - - • 1 platform: Rounds -
o • •
Pi M '■fj tu 2 platforms: Kvadrat; 6 platforms: IRC-ROST; Finmuster; 4 platforms: SIMPLE ESTATE;
S3 tu S -M tu MTS Zvezdy Registrator "Garant"; Interregional Registration Center; NFK-Savings; Noviy Registrator; INVEST. AOREESTR;
c ZAO-SRK VTB Registrar
• •
Above average - 1 platform : Zorko 5 platforms: EARC.ru; DRAGA; PTC.SPB; RT-Registrar; Zapusk - -
High - - - - -
The Rounds platform is recommended as the most active for investments and is characterised by a below-average level of risk. Most of the other platforms belong to the average activity and average risk group. The indicators for each analysed group are presented in Table 7.
Table 7. Indicators characterising groups of crowdinvesting platforms
Volume Number of outstanding contracts in 2022 Number
Ratio of risk R of attracted Number Total number of outstanding
to investment investments of investment of investors obligations
activity I in 2022, million rubles proposals on the platform in 2022, million rubles
Average -below average 0 0 0 0 0
Average -average 70.55 4 5 0 0
Average -above average 384.33 25 399 0 0
Below average -above average 76.54 7 55 0 0
Above average -below average 0 0 0 0 0
Above average -average 0 0 0 0 0
Current investors choose the "average risk - above average activity" strategy, which minimises the risks. The activity of participants on the platform, unlike crowdlend-ing, is not a factor of choice. In order to identify the factors affecting the growth of the risk level, we performed correlation and regression analysis, which allowed us to assess the correlations between investment activity and risk factors, and form a regression equation to estimate the impact of a combination of factors affecting the value of investments. Table 8 presents the results of the correlation of the identified dependencies.
The volume of attracted investments in crowdlending platforms is positively influenced by the number of investment proposals, the profitability of the operator of the digital platform and the enlargement of the ecosystem. At the same time, the most successful platforms have high credit and litigation risks. The growth of the platform's investments depends on the growth rate of investment proposals and the number of investors who are permanent and active participants of the platform. The platform's scale has a positive impact on the efficiency and financial stability of the operator, which is confirmed by a positive correlation between profitability indicators (I9) and the growth rate of investors (I7).
Table 8. Correlation analysis of the variables characterising activity and risks of crowdlending platforms
Indicator I1 I2 I3 I4 I5 I6 I7 I9 I11 I13 R3 R11 R12
Ii 1 0.64** 0.94** 0.65** 0.87** 0.62** 0.05 0.05 0.52** 0.66** 0.61** 0.43** 0.52**
I2 0.64** 1 0.74** 0.98** 0.66** 0.94** 0.05 0.02 0.45** 0.54** 0.41** 0.42** 0.46**
I3 0.94** 0.74** 1 0.74** 0.92** 0.73** 0.01 0.01 0.51** 0.60** 0.58** 0.56** 0.64**
I4 0.65** 0.98** 0.74** 1 0.67** 0.96** 0.01 -0.03 0.46** 0.54** 0.39** 0.45** 0.51**
I5 0.87** 0.66** 0.92** 0.67** 1 0.73** -0.11 -0.06 0.45** 0.6** 0.57** 0.55** 0.68**
I6 0.62** 0.94** 0.73** 0.96** 0.73** 1 -0.02 -0.05 0.4** 0.52** 0.37** 0.42** 0.5**
I7 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.01 -0.11 -0.02 1 0.87** 0.21 0.1 0.12 -0.01 0.01
I9 0.05 0.02 0.01 -0.03 -0.06 -0.05 0.87** 1 0.14 0.1 0.02 -0.06 -0.05
I11 0.52** 0.45** 0.51** 0.46** 0.45** 0.40** 0.21 0.14 1 0.49* 0.44** 0.66** 0.48**
I13 0.66** 0.54** 0.6** 0.54** 0.6** 0.52** 0.1 0.1 0.49** 1 0.33* 0.37** 0.44**
R3 0.61** 0.41** 0.58** 0.39** 0.57** 0.37** 0.12 0.02 0.44** 0.33* 1 0.51** 0.6**
R11 0.43** 0.42** 0.56** 0.45** 0.55** 0.42** -0.01 -0.06 0.66** 0.37** 0.51** 1 0.77**
R12 0.52** 0.46** 0.64** 0.51** 0.68** 0.5** 0.01 -0.05 0.48** 0.44** 0.6** 0.77** 1
Notes: Hereinafter, the superscripts *, ** denote correlation significance at 0.05 and at 0.01 levels, respectively. Tables 8-9 include part of the analysis excluding the variables, the relationship between which is not found (0.5-0.7 - a noticeable relationship; 0.7-0.9 - high; 0.9-0.99 - very high).
Table 9 presents the results of the correlation analysis between indicators that determine investment activity and crowdinvesting risks.
Table 9. Correlation analysis of the variables characterising activity and risks of crowdinvesting platforms
Indicator I1 I2 I3 I4 I5 I6 I7 Is I9 I10 I12 I13 R1 R4
Ii 1 0.73** 0.99** 0.72** 0.99** 0.7** 0.23 0.44 0.23 0.45 0.49* 0.69** -0.54* -0.01
I2 0.73** 1 0.69** 0.99** 0.72** 0.98** 0.04 0.45 0.04 0.49* 0.31 0.54* -0.56* 0.1
I3 0.99** 0.69** 1 0.68** 0.98** 0.65** 0.29 0.41 0.29 0.42 0.49* 0.68** -0.53 -0.01
I4 0.72** 0.99** 0.68** 1 0.72** 0.99** 0.04 0.45 0.04 0.49* 0.31 0.54* -.056* 0.09
I5 0.99** 0.72** 0.98** 0.72** 1 0.70** 0.22 0.45 0.22 0.48* 0.49* 0.66** -0.57* -0.01
I6 0.7** 0.98** 0.65** 0.99** 0.7** 1 0.03 0.52* 0.03 0.56* 0.31 0.54* -0.62** 0.04
I7 0.23 0.04 0.29 0.04 0.22 0.03 1 0.57* 1 ** 0.49* 0.35 0.55* -0.56* -0.31
I8 0.44 0.45 0.41 0.45 0.45 0.52* 0.57* 1 0.57* 0.99** 0.35 0.72** -0.9** -0.37
I9 0.23 0.04 0.29 0.04 0.22 0.03 1 ** 0.57* 1 0.49* 0.35 0.55* -0.56* -0.31
Ii0 0.46 0.49* 0.42 0.49* 0.48* 0.56* 0.49* 0.99** 0.49* 1 0.35 0.71** -0.95** -0.34
Ii2 0.49* 0.31 0.49* 0.31 0.49* 0.31 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 1 0.28 -0.35 -0.7**
I13 0.69** 0.54* 0.68** 0.54* 0.66* 0.54* 0.55* 0.72** 0.55* 0.71** 0.28 1 -0.7** 0.05
Ri -0.05* -0.56* -0.05* -0.06* -0.57* -0.6** -0.6* -0.9** -0.6* -0.9** -0.35 -0.7** 1 0.32
R4 -0.01 0.09 -0.01 0.09 -0.01 0.04 -0.31 -0.37 -0.31 -0.33 -0.71** 0.05 0.32 1
As for crowdinvesting, the volume of investments attracted depends on the number of investment proposals and active investors, the efficiency of the activity and the market activity of the platform operator. The correlation analysis shows that the inflow of investments into digital platforms is largely driven by the number of investment proposals and market activity, but decreases depending on credit risk and the number of investors on the platform. Legal risks are interrelated - they increase with the growth of participants and the size of the digital platform.
Conclusion
In line with the purpose of the study, we developed a rating-based assessment method that enables agents of digital platforms to make well-founded investment decisions when selecting sites and thus minimise their risks. This method allows choosing the optimal strategy for investing and placing investment projects on the platform, thereby ensuring their profitability and financial security. These tools and the results of ranking can be used by investors and borrowers when developing financial strategies, as well as by control and supervisory authorities and audit organisations when identifying risks of reputational damage or termination of activities.
By applying the proposed method, we prepared rankings of 68 crowdfunding platforms based on a comparison of indicators of investment activity and financial risk. The analysis revealed that investment platforms have average to above average risks and crowdlending platforms are more active than crowdinvesting platforms. The safest platforms among crowdlending platforms are Co-Fi, Peers.money, Potok.Digital, Investory, InvestGO and among the crowdinvesting platforms - Rounds. The results of the assessment show that 17 crowdlending platforms and 2 crowdinvesting platforms are classified as less active in the initial working stage.
Our findings demonstrate that the investment inflow depends on the number of investment proposals, the efficiency of the operators and the size of the platform. Existing crowdlending platform investors choose the strategy of high activity and above average risk, focusing on the number of investment proposals and the size of the platform. The study identified factors that limit the activity of platforms: credit and litigation risks, low level of financial planning and management.
The limitations of the method are related to a unified approach to evaluating active and inexperienced digital platforms, which leads to differences when comparing indicators. Future studies could fruitfully explore this issue further considering the life cycle in the method and applying an evolutionary approach to assess the development of ecosystems. Analysis of the dynamics over a long period of time will reveal changes in agents' losses and profitability, as well as conditions and opportunities for building active agency networks.
Appendix 1. List of digital investment platforms
Platform Website
AtomInvest https://atominvest.ru
BARCLAY FINANCE https://barclay-finance.ru/
BitRussia https://bitrussia.ru/
BIZMALL Financial Platform https://bizmall.ru/
Co-Fi https://cofi.ru/
Credit.Club https://credit.club/
Crowd Money https://crowd-money.ru
DRAGA https://draga.ru/
EARC.ru https://earc.ru/
Fair Finance https://fairfin.ru/
FININ-K https://инвестиции-в-госзакупки.рф
Finmuster https://investment-platforma.com
GETUP https://getup.ru/
Gorod Deneg https://townmoney.ru/
INCROWD https://incrowd.ru/
Insight Investment Group https://insightgroup.ru/#about
Interregional Registration Center http://www.mrz.ru/en/
INVEST.AOREESTR https://invest.aoreestr.ru/
InvestGate https://investgate.ru/
InvestGO https://investgo.ru/
INVESTMEN https://investmen.pro
InveStore https://investore.club/
Investory https://investory-online.ru/
Investra Ы^://инвестра.рф/
InvoiceCafé https://invoice.cafe/
IP Vdole https://vdole.co/
IRC-ROST https://rrost.ru/
Jetlend https://jetlend.ru
Karma Technolodgy https://wow.karma.red/
KFinance https://kfinance.ru/
Kolesnik.investment https://kolesnik.vercel.app/
Kvadrat -
Lender-Invest https://lender-invest.ru/
Lendly https://lendly.ru/
MD Finance https://mdfin.ru/
Money Friends https://www.moneyfriends.ru/
Appendix 1 (continued)
MTS Zvezdy https://crowdloud.mts.ru
My Capital https://mycapital.ru/
National investment platform https://nip.ooo/
NFK-Savings https://nfesber.ru/
NibbleInvest https://nibbleinvest.ru/
NIP (National Investment Platform) Ы^://нип.рф/
Noviy Registrator https://www.newreg.ru/
Operator of investment platform PRIORITY https://ippriority.ru/
Peers.money https://peers.money/
Penenza https://penenza.ru/
Platform N 1 https://pln.one/
Potok.Digital https://www.potok.digital
PTC.SPB https://ptc.spb.ru/
Qliq Invest https://qliqinvest.ru/
Registrator "Garant" https://www.reggarant.ru/
RIPE Capital https://pt.2035.university
Rounds https://rounds.ru/
RT-Registrar https://rtreg.ru/
SIMPLE ESTATE https://simpleestate.ru/
Smart Invest https://smart-invest.me/
STATUS Invest https://platform.rostatus.ru/
StrizhInvest https://www.strizhinvest.ru/
TalanInvest https://talaninvest.ru/
Terrace Invest https://terrace.center/
THEDENGI https://thedengi.ru/
Tochka Investment https://tochka.com/invest/
Udalton Investment https://www.udalton.ru/
VDelo https://vdelo.pro/
VTB Registrar https://www.vtbreg.ru/
ZAO-SRK https://zao-srk.ru/
Zapusk https://zapusk.tech/
Zorko https://zorko-exchange.ru/
Appendix 2. Results of the rating-based assessment of crowdlending and crowdinvesting platforms
Platform Rating-based assessment of risk Risk level Rating-based assessment of investment activity Investment activity level
Crowdlending platforms
Penenza 30.33 above average 30.46 above average
Crowd Money 29.83 above average 33.79 high
Terrace Invest 28.87 above average 26.68 above average
MD Finance 28.70 above average 31.89 high
National investment platform 28.67 above average 17.32 average
BARCLAY FINANCE 28.47 above average 16.57 average
Talanlnvest 28.43 above average 23.25 average
INCROWD 28.33 above average 18.93 average
Gorod Deneg 27.97 above average 35.18 high
VDelo 27.70 above average 34.39 high
Nibblelnvest 27.47 above average 17.96 average
InveStore 27.27 above average 28.21 above average
KFinance 27.00 above average 21.86 average
FININ-K 26.77 above average 28.89 above average
Karma Technolodgy 26.67 above average 22.89 average
AtomInvest 26.63 above average 22.86 average
Qliq Invest 26.27 above average 16.57 below average
Udalton Investment 25.93 above average 18.36 average
STATUS Invest 25.90 above average 31.21 above average
Operator of investment platform PRIORITY 25.90 above average 13.68 below average
Jetlend 25.80 above average 39.14 high
Money Friends 25.63 above average 36.04 high
InvestGate 25.53 above average 21.39 average
RIPE Capital 25.47 above average 19.89 average
InvoiceCafe 25.30 above average 18.68 average
Tochka Investment 25.20 above average 32.00 above average
StrizhInvest 25.13 above average 33.00 above average
INVESTMEN 25.03 above average 21.36 average
BitRussia 24.53 above average 16.57 average
Smart Invest 24.37 above average 24.32 average
Lendly 24.30 above average 24.64 average
Lender-Invest 24.17 above average 24.25 average
Co-Fi 23.97 average 33.36 high
GETUP 23.73 average 18.79 average
Appendix 2 (continued)
Rating- Rating-based
Platform based Risk level assessment Investment
assessment of risk of investment activity activity level
Fair Finance 23.70 average 26.36 above average
IP Vdole 23.30 average 21.11 average
Platform N 1 23.20 average 27.00 above average
Peers.money 23.00 average 32.43 high
Potok.Digital 21.90 average 39.29 high
Investory 21.57 average 32.96 high
Insight Investment Group 21.33 average 17.86 average
Investra 21.33 average 17.96 average
Kolesnik.investment 21.17 average 30.29 above average
InvestGO 21.03 average 35.18 high
BIZMALL Financial Platform 21.00 average 16.57 average
Credit.Club 20.97 average 2129 average
THEDENGI 20.30 average 16.43 average
NIP 20.23 average 16.82 average
My Capital 19.70 average 19.07 average
Crowdinvesting platforms
Rounds 7.2 below average 15.39 above average
SIMPLE ESTATE 9.55 average 14.39 above average
Noviy Registrator 9.5 average 14.04 above average
INVEST.AOREESTR 9.1 average 13.86 above average
VTB Registrar 10.1 average 13.61 above average
IRC-ROST 8.7 average 11.89 average
Finmuster 8.3 average 11.61 average
Registrator "Garant" 10.3 average 9.54 average
Interregional Registration Center 10.6 average 9.00 average
NFK-Savings 10.3 average 8.11 average
EARC.ru 13.1 above average 8.11 average
DRAGA 9.05 above average 8.11 average
PTC.SPB 9.1 above average 8.11 average
RT-Registrar 9.55 above average 8.11 average
Zapusk 12.2 above average 8.07 average
ZAO-SRK 10.85 average 8.07 average
Kvadrat 9.3 average 7.43 below average
Zorko 13.35 above average 6.75 below average
MTS Zvezdy 9.85 average 5.82 below average
References
Barilenko V. I. (2020). Analytical justification of promising business models for small-scale enterprises. RISK: Resursy, informatsiya, snabzhenie, konkurentsiya = RISK: Resources, Information, Supply, Competition, no. 4, pp. 83-87. http://elib.fa.ru/art2020/bv3678.pdf. (In Russ.)
Duk A. Yu., Dzhamaldinova M. D. (2016). Crowdfunding as an investment in innovation process. Voprosy regional'noy ekonomiki = Problems of Regional Economy, no. 1 (26), pp. 27-33. (In Russ.)
Ezangina I. A., Evstratov A. V. (2019). New instruments for financing small and medium enterprises in Russia: Crowdinvesting. Finansy: teoriya i praktika = Finance: Theory and Practice, no. 23 (3), pp. 122-136. DOI: 10.26794/2587-5671-2019-23-3-122-136. (In Russ.)
Efimova O. V. (2023). Information about risks in the field of sustainable development and its disclosure in corporate reporting for interested users. Auditorskie vedomosti = Audit Journal, no. 1, pp. 188-191. (In Russ.)
Korolev O. L. (2022). Financial risks of virtualized economy. Nauchnyy Vestnik: Finansy, Banki, Investitsii = Scientific Bulletin: Finance, Banking, Investment, no. 3 (60), pp. 37-45. (In Russ.)
Ksenofontov S. O. (2017). Risk management in crowdfunding technologies. Uspekhi sovremen-noy nauki = Successes of Modern Science, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 47-50. (In Russ.)
Loginov D. R., Nikiforova N. A. (2021). Analysis of the development factors of the responsible investment industry. Audit, no. 10, pp. 25-28. (In Russ.)
Lyubushin N. P., Babicheva R. E., Kupryushina O. M., Khanin D. G. (2021). The economic analysis of the impact of grand challenges on sustainability and continuity of business entities' activities. Ekonomicheskiy analiz: teoriya i praktika = Economic Analysis: Theory and Practice, vol. 20, no. 11 (518), pp. 1994-2020. https://doi.org/10.24891/ea.20.11.1994. (In Russ.)
Matytsin D. E. (2021). The legislative innovations in the regulation of investment transactions made using the financial platform: Effectiveness evaluation. Legal Concept, no. 3, pp. 125-137. htt-ps://doi.org/10.15688/lc.jvolsu.2021.3.19. (In Russ.)
Mikhaylyuk M. N., Chinazirova S. K., Kostenko R. V. (2020). Crowdfunding as a tool for attracting investments in the innovative sector of the economy. Novye tekhnologii = New Technologies, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 116-122. https://doi.org/10.47370/2072-0920-2020-16-6-116-122. (In Russ.)
Motovilov O. V. (2018). Crowdfunding phenomenon: Investigation of features. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Ekonomika = St Petersburg University Journal of Economic Studies, vol. 34, issue 2, pp. 298-316. https://doi.org/10.21638/11701/spbu05.2018.205. (In Russ.)
Papaskua G. T. (2021). Crowdfunding: The concept, types and risks. Aktualnye problemy rossi-yskogo prava = Actual Problems of Russian Law, vol. 16, no. 7, pp. 77-85. DOI: 10.17803/19941471.2021.128.7.077-08. (In Russ.)
Popov E. V., Veretennikova A. Yu., Fedoreev S. A. (2021). Possibilities and constrains of crowd-lending platform development. Finansy i kredit = Finance and Credit, vol. 27, no. 11 (815), pp. 24792502. DOI: 10.24891/fc.27.11.2479. (In Russ.)
Russkova E. G., Chaykina E. V., Chaykin V. Yu. (2019). Investment platforms in the infrastructure of the financial market of the Russian Federation. Vestnik Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya 3, Ekonomika. Ekologiya = Journal of Volgograd State University. Economics, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 90-98. https://doi.org/10.15688/jvolsu3.2019.2.8. (In Russ.)
Savaley V. V. (2021). Development of alternative forms of financing for projects using digital technologies. Territoriya novykh voz-mozhnostey. Vestnik Vladivostokskogo gosudarstvennogo univer-siteta ekonomiki i servisa = Territory of New Opportunities. Bulletin of the Vladivostok State University of Economics and Service, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 45-61. https://doi.org/10.24866/VVSU/2073-3984/2021-1/045-061. (In Russ.)
Starodubtseva E. B., Medvedeva M. B. (2021). CrowdfUnding as a modern form of financing. Finansy i kredit = Finance and Credit, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 22-40. https://doi.org/10.24891/fc.27.L22. (In Russ.)
Tretyakova E. A., Freyman E. N. (2022). Ecosystem approach in modern economic research. Voprosy upravleniya = Management Issues, no. 1, pp. 6-20. DOI: 10.22394/2304-3369-2022-1-6-20. (In Russ.)
Shangina I. Yu. (2020). Analysis and prospects for the development of the global and Russian crowdlending market. Kreativnaya ekonomika = Creative Economy, vol.14, no. 10, pp. 2383-2396. DOI: 10.18334/ce.14.10.110962. (In Russ.)
Yatsenko T. S. (2019). The problem of protection of rights of investors in crowdfunding: investment risks and ways to overcome them. Zhurnal rossiyskogo prava = Journal of Russian Law, no. 8, pp. 62-71. DOI: 10.12737/jrl.2019.8.6. (In Russ.)
Ablyazov T., Asaturova J., Koscheyev V. (2018). Digital technologies: New forms and tools of business activity. Proc. IV Int. Sci. Conf. "The Convergence of Digital and Physical Worlds: Technological, Economic and Social Challenges" (CC-TESC2018), vol. 44, 00004. DOI: 10.1051/shsconf/20184400004.
Acs Z. J., Stam E., Audretsch D. B., O'Connor A. (2017). The lineages of the entrepreneurial ecosystem approach. Small Business Economics, vol. 49, pp. 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9864-8.
Barykin S. E., Kapustina I. V., Kirillova T. V., Yadykin V., Konnikov Y. A. (2020). Economics of digital ecosystems. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, vol. 6, issue 4, 124. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc6040124.
Cozzolino A., Corbo L., Aversa P. (2021). Digital platform-based ecosystems: The evolution of collaboration and competition between incumbent producers and entrant platforms. Journal of Business Research, vol. 126, pp. 385-400. https://doi.org/10.1016Aj.jbusres.2020.12.058.
Gianluca E., Margherita A., Passiante G. (2020). Digital entrepreneurship ecosystem: How digital technologies and collective intelligence are reshaping the entrepreneurial process. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 150, 119791. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119791.
McIntyre D. P., Srinivasan A. (2017). Networks, platforms, and strategy: Emerging views and next steps. Strategic Management Journal, vol. 38, issue 1, pp. 141-160. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2596.
Parida V., Sjodin D. R., Reim W. (2019). Reviewing literature on digitalization, business model innovation, and sustainable industry: Past achievements and future promises. Sustainability, vol. 11, issue 2, 391. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11020391.
Pushpananthan G., Elmquist M. (2022). Joining forces to create value: The emergence of an innovation ecosystem. Technovation, vol. 115, 102453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102453.
Rabetino R., Harmsen W., Kohtamaki M., Sihvonen J. (2018). Structuring servitization-re-lated research. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, vol. 38, issue 2, pp. 350-371. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-03-2017-0175.
Senyo P. K., Effah J., Liu K. (2017). Towards a methodology for modelling interdependencies between partners in digital business ecosystems. Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Logistics, Informatics and Service Sciences (pp. 1165- 1170). IEEE.
Toh M. N. (2021). Developing digital business ecosystem in Singapore. Research Paper (Asia Competitiveness Institute Research Paper Series no. 12-2021). 24 p.
Information about the authors
Sergey V. Khmura, Jr. Researcher of Laboratory for Regional Entrepreneurial Ecosystems' Research in Digital Environment, Postgraduate of Finance Dept. Amur State University, Blagoveshchensk, Russia; Deputy Head of Amur Region Investment Promotion Agency, Blagoveshchensk, Russia. E-mail: sergey.khmura@gmail.com Vilena A. Yakimova, Cand. Sc. (Econ.) Associate Prof., Associate Prof. of Finance Dept., Head of Laboratory for Regional Entrepreneurial Ecosystems' Research in Digital Environment. Amur State University, Blagoveshchensk, Russia. E-mail: vilena_yakimova@ mail.ru
© Khmura S. V., Yakimova V. A., 2023
