The United States is often a pioneer of innovation in so many industrial and economic fields: crowdfunding is one of them. In our article on the history of crowdfunding we traced the traces of ancestral forms of crowdfunding that can be recognized in history in several countries around the world. One of these is the U.S., and it was here in 2006 that the term crowdfunding was coined: Michael Sullivan used it to distinguish online fundraising from traditional offline fundraising (fundraising) at the launch of the Fundavlog portal, dedicated to funding videoblogs.

In this article we recount crowdfunding in the U.S. from its origins to the present, analyzing numbers and trends, looking at the regulatory framework and offering a comparison with crowdfunding in Europe.

A little history: the origins of crowdfunding in the U.S.

Le roots of crowdfunding in the U.S. sink farther back than that 2006 just mentioned: in 1884, a fundraising campaign launched by publisher Joseph Pulitzer in his newspaper "The World" enabled the construction of the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty. More than 120,000 people across the United States, from all walks of life, contributed donations that together came to more than $100,000, demonstrating a strong spirit of collective funding.

Thereafter the First, true crowdfunding platform in the U.S. was ArtistShare, which appeared in 2000. Debt-based crowdfunding (or peer-to-peer lending) then emerged in 2006 with the launch of platforms such as Lending Club and Prosper.com. Subsequently, platforms such as Indiegogo (January 2008) and Kickstarter (April 2009) have helped make crowdfunding an increasingly popular funding option, initially for artistic and creative projects, then for business ventures of all kinds.

La Diffusion of crowdfunding as an important source of funding in the U.S. occurred between 2009 and 2011, when capital raising tripled: from $530 million to $1.5 billion. 

A significant turning point for the crowdfunding in the U.S. was the approval of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act. by President Obama in April 2012. This law immediately legalized equity crowdfunding and removed the ban on general investment solicitation for accredited investors, facilitating access to capital for small businesses. In the same year, Fundable launched the first crowdfunding platform specifically geared toward businesses. Another crucial step was the enactment of section Regulation Crowdfunding of the Jobs Act in 2016, which also allowed non-accredited investors to participate in online funding rounds for the first time. 

Since then, the sector has continued to grow and diversify, becoming a key pillar of the financial ecosystem alternative to traditional sources of financing.

The size of the US crowdfunding market.

There are no Official data on the crowdfunding market in the U.S., but rather many independent researches that use very different criteria to analyze the phenomenon. It is difficult, therefore, to provide reliable numbers, especially for lending crowdfunding, because the very definition of lending crowdfunding that we use in Europe is not the same one adopted in the U.S. nor the same one used in all studies on the subject.

They range from those who speak of a market of about $70 billion, such as the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance, which includes various forms of debt financing, to those who circumscribe it to only $1-2 billion, including only "pure" p2p lending between individuals.

For equity crowdfunding, it is only somewhat easier: most estimates indicate nearly $1 billion when Reg CF and Reg A+ transactions are added together.

We can only state with certainty that North America as a whole covers a Dominant share of the global crowdfunding market, and the United States is responsible for the largest portion of this share.

Equity Crowdfunding in the U.S.

Two key regulations define the equity crowdfunding landscape in the United States:

• Regulation Crowdfunding (Reg CF): This regulation allows eligible companies to collect a maximum aggregate amount of 5 million dollars over a 12-month period by both accredited and non-accredited investors through online platforms.
• Regulation A+ (Reg A): this regulation provides the opportunity for U.S. companies that meet certain requirements to raise larger sums, up to 75 million dollars over a 12-month period. It consists of two tiers: tier 1 (up to $20 million) and tier 2 (up to $75 million). Tier 2 carries more stringent requirements, but offers the advantage of simplifying capital raising through different states.

The presence of these distinct regulatory layers for equity crowdfunding directly affects the scale of capital that companies can raise and the stage of business development that can effectively use each regulation. 

Reg CF is suitable for the initial funding and goodwill, while Reg A+ facilitates the raising of capital for the large-scale growth. This regulatory architecture allows for a progressive path for companies seeking capital through crowdfunding, allowing them to start small, validate their business model and then scale up capital raising as they grow, without necessarily having to immediately pursue traditional venture capital or IPOs. This contributes to the overall flexibility and depth of the U.S. equity crowdfunding market.

For non-accredited investors, the investment limits are based on their annual income and net worth:

• If annual income or net worth is less than $124,000, the investment limit is the greater of $2,500 or 5% of the greater of annual income or net worth
• if both annual income and net worth are $124,000 or more, the limit is 10% of the greater of annual income or net worth, capped at $124,000.

All Reg CF campaigns take place on regulated portals, with a requirement for the issuer to prepare Form C containing corporate information, business plan, audited financial statements for offerings above certain thresholds, etc. Investors benefit from a right of withdrawal (within 48 hours of closing) and resale of securities is restricted (1-year lock-up). 

Only from 2021 is the following allowed The use of SPVs to aggregate investors (reducing crowding on shareholder books). In addition, secondary markets for crowdfunding securities are emerging that aim to bring crowdfunding closer to more liquid and attractive forms of investment even for sophisticated investors-a crucial goal for Europe as well.

SAFE

The SAFE (Simple Agreement for Future Equity) is a contractual tool created in the United States in 2013 through Y Combinator, designed to simplify early-stage capital raising.

With a SAFE, the investor contributes capital today in exchange for the right to receive units or shares in the future, usually upon the occurrence of a subsequent raising event (equity round) or exit. It does not provide interest, maturity or redemption obligations like debt, nor does it grant immediate voting rights like direct equity.

In crowdfunding equity usa, particularly under Reg CF, SAFEs are popular because:

• reduce legal costs and complexity compared to an immediate capital increase;
• allow the official evaluation of the company to be postponed to a future round;
• adapt well to rounds with many small investors, avoiding the need to change the cap table right away.

But SAFE also enables the realization of Crowdfunding models based on royalties or revenue sharing: investors provide seed capital in exchange for a percentage of future sales or revenues of the company or a specific business unit or individual project, without obtaining equity or voting rights.

This flexibility, combined with U.S. investors' familiarity with the tool, has made SAFE the de facto standard for many crowdfunding campaigns in the United States.

In Italy, such flexibility can be achieved with the Participative Financial Instruments.

US platforms

Le crowdfunding offerings in the United States may only be conducted through SEC-registered online platforms or FINRA member funding portals.

The U.S. market is served by more than 100 crowdfunding platforms, 20 of which have been continuously active over the years. The top two operators are Wefunder and StartEngine. They are followed by platforms such as DealMaker, Republic, SeedInvest, Netcapital, and Equifund.

Even in the United States, specialized real estate portals such as Fundrise and CrowdStreet have spread over the years.

Bidders and investors

The typical profile of the Firms resorting to equity crowdfunding in the U.S. includes startups and small businesses in the early or growth stage. 

Thanks to Reg CF regulation, many of these companies are early-stage companies that involve their community of customers as investors. 

I Dominant industry sectors in US crowdfunding Are:

• Technology
• Food & Beverage
• Healthcare
• Real estate

Other notable sectors include entertainment, consumer products, fashion and art.

Most investors, on the other hand, are private non-accredited (small savers) attracted by the possibility of investing small amounts in promising startups thanks to Reg CF. However, institutional investors are on the rise, especially in the real estate crowdfunding.

The most represented age group among investors is between 30 and 40 years old. 

Lending crowdfunding in the United States

Debt-based crowdfunding probably accounts for the highest market share of the overall crowdfunding usa, thanks to its many variations.

As has also happened in Italy, the segment P2P consumer lending US peaked around 2016-2017, after which it saw a gradual institutionalization: institutional investors and funds began to occupy or purchase platforms dedicated to this type of lending, reducing the role of the retail "small investor."

The business-type lending crowdfunding, on the other hand, has continued to grow especially among SMEs and in real estate.

Another similarity with Italy concerns legislation: the lending crowdfunding in the U.S. does not fall under a single, clear framework like equity crowdfunding and is subject to rather fragmented regulation, similar to what happened in Italy before the ECSP Regulation.

The trend is to An increasingly institutional inspiration for lending crowdfunding, which seems to limit direct access to this type of crowdinvesting for retail investors.

Initially, however, it was small investors who had been the driving force behind the success of online group lending, attracted by decidedly attractive interest rates.

Reward crowdfunding USA

The United States is a leader in reward crowdfunding, both historically and in the present. After explosive growth in the early 2010s, the rate of growth has slowed. This is partly due to competition from new forms of pre-order and direct marketing (for example, some startups now prefer to launch products directly through their own sites), and partly due to the lack of protections and the high number of failures that still characterize reward crowdfunding campaigns because of the lack of entry selection: we discussed this in our article on reward crowdfunding platforms.

Kickstarter and Indiegogo were the pioneering platforms and still rank high in their field, not only in the U.S. but also worldwide. 

As of 2025, Kickstarter has received a total of about $8.71 billion from more than 24 million backers, funding more than 277,000 projects. Geographically, the audience is international, although about 40% of Kickstarter backers are from the US itself.

The most successful campaigns are related to tech gadgets, board games, innovative tech devices, and manage to raise as much as millions of dollars each, but most projects remain small-scale (the average campaign raises around $10,000). 

Alongside these leaders, there are numerous specialized platforms for reward crowdfunding in particular niches (e.g., music, publishing, film, etc.). 

Real estate crowdfunding in the United States

The market of the real estate crowdfunding in the United States Is extremely heterogeneous. The most frequent operations include:

• Equity: direct participation or through funds.
• Lending: short real estate loans with fixed rates (very popular in the residential sector).
• eREIT/digital funds: vehicles that raise capital for investment in diversified real estate portfolios.
• Fractional ownership: platforms such as Arrived Homes allow people to buy shares in individual residential properties and receive rental income from minimal amounts.

The report conducted by Polimi and Walliance on real estate crowdfunding in the U.S. estimates an expanded market (i.e., including institutional investments) of about $25 billion in 2023.

In the United States much more than in Europe, there are also emerging tokenized real estate platforms, which use blockchain technology to divide real estate ownership into digital tokens, facilitating the buying and selling of fractional shares.

Emerging trends in US crowdfunding

We can identify four main trends that are shaping the future of U.S. crowdfunding:

• Increased limits and larger rounds: the regulatory increase in the raising cap for equity crowdfunding has attracted more mature companies to the market and produced more significant rounds. Some companies have taken advantage of the ability to combine multiple types of raising at the same time. This scalability has made crowdfunding a relevant source of funding even for scale-up or mature companies.
  
• Greater institutional and professional involvement: if crowdfunding in the U.S. began as the realm of small retail investors, today it also attracts professional players such as venture capital, business angels, funds, and even banks. This hybridization could increase the credibility of the industry but poses the challenge of maintaining the "crowd" nature of crowdfunding. Complementary forms are also growing, that is, startups that crowdfund themselves and in doing so attract the attention of business angels or venture capitalists.
  
• Technological innovations: As mentioned earlier, in the U.S. we observe experimentation with blockchain crowdfunding, with issuance of security token representing equity or asset shares, exchangeable on digital platforms, and the integration of smart contracts into the crowdfunding model. Although this sub-sector is still niche and subject to regulatory uncertainties, it represents a likely development to be considered, as we also highlighted in our article on the future of crowdfunding. Some traditional equity crowdfunding campaigns have also begun to accept cryptocurrency investments.

Artificial intelligence, secondly, is increasingly being used to predict the results of campaigns both in the selection phase (for platforms) and in the live campaign phase (for investors) by analyzing pitch, economic-financial data, speed of marketing activities, and audience sentiment. 

• Market consolidation and maturation: As the industry grows, we see the phenomena of consolidation as cross-platform mergers and acquisitions. This suggests that the U.S. industry is concentrating around a few major hubs as competition and the need for economies of scale increase. We are also seeing the same phenomenon in Europe.

US vs. EU: macro differences

1. The US crowdfunding market is much larger than the European market. It benefits from a very large retail investor base and a strong widespread entrepreneurial spirit. In Europe, the language barrier and preference for local investments have so far often limited the scale of campaigns, but the ECSP Regulation is expected to encourage the breaking down of boundaries in the future, and English is already the lingua franca of alternative finance.

But that is not the only point: traditionally, U.S. retail investors are more risk-averse, also driven by decades of widespread stock market culture. In Europe, the approach tends to be more cautious (it is more so than ever in Italy).

2. Leading sectors in the U.S. tech and consumer in equity crowdfunding and from a business form perspective startups dominate, often pushed by accelerators themselves into crowdfunding. 

In Europe, there is a higher percentage of Traditional SMEs that raise funds, and there are more projects related to renewable energy e real estate (especially in lending form). There is also a more social in some European platforms that specialize in raising capital for environmental sustainability projects or intervening in distressed social realities, which is less common in U.S. portals.

3. In the U.S., regulation is more flexible and allows capital collections with higher maximum thresholds (Reg A+'s $75 million) than the European Union (with its $5 million annual cap).

On the other hand, there are stricter limits for retail investors in the U.S. than in the European Union, which imposes rating tests but not precise income-based bar thresholds.