Two Water Treatment Scams Raised $250,000. What Can We Learn?

Two high-profile crowdfunding campaigns recently won many people over, but they both don't work. What can we learn from situations like this?

Last year, two high-profile crowdfunding campaigns captured the hearts and imaginations of many with their innovative water designs that claimed to collect water from the air.  Fontus  and  WaterSeer  collectively raised over half a million dollars in a relatively short period of time.

What’s ultra remarkable about these campaigns?

They don’t work.

Fontus and WaterSeer

The culprits in most cases are university college design projects that have ‘gone too far’, extrapolating occurrences that MAY happen under ‘perfect conditions’ into being a life-saving tool. The democratisation of fundraising through crowd-platforms are accelerating conceptual projects far beyond the previous reaches that coursework typically could.

The incredibly low cost to build a team to create impressive marketing materials from VFX to professional voiceovers means anyone can REALLY bring their idea to life. This means that students are positioning themselves closer to GE product launches, rather than just, y’know… scams.

Whose fault is it? Well, the nature of higher education involves pushing students to think outside of the box and be inventive at problems solving.

This is fine, but these students are in institutions focused on art & design.

They are not studying the sciences or engineering, nor are they studying business management. They don’t need to consult experts in the field of their subjects nor do they have to write detailed feasibility reports or file patents.

Because of this, an increasing number of highly commended ‘ideas’ are taking on a life of their own in the public domain. The media goes CRAZY for this clickbait regardless of scientific underpinning.

Both water projects here come from design students.

Whilst I see no harm with these projects being in the public domain for us to appreciate their creative flair, the false claims and manipulative presentations should not be allowed and promoted on a platform for zero accountability fundraising.

I do appreciate the challenge that Indiegogo and others have in policing which of these. Although they have interest in both driving revenue and establishing a trusted platform, right now they are prioritising the former quite clearly. I hope this is something that Indiegogo  et al.  is considering given the exploitation of their audiences is certainly damaging their reputation. It wouldn’t be hugely technical to label projects being carried out by students as part of their degree with a badge publicising the affiliation with an institution to help guide users’ judgement. Or a clear warning message before contributors part with their money to acknowledge this they are funding a student project which may be on average less likely to be fulfilled.

Youtubers like EEVBlog and Thunderfoot (see below) share wonderful ‘takedown’ videos debunking the campaigns with an easy to understand, science-first approach. These videos are certainly entertaining, enlightening and give the less-technical sceptics with evidence that something is really too good to be true.

Can anything good come of these scams?! I think it can.

I wanted to look a little deeper about why I think these campaigns have some use on the whole.

They promote scepticism

It’s easier to take things at face value rather than applying logic and researching whether something is for real. ‘Caveat emptor’ they say in Latin, the principle that the buyer alone is responsible for checking the quality and suitability of goods before a purchase is made. Popularising that these campaigns are bogus should educate people that, just because a cool, idealistic animation popped up in their newsfeed on Facebook or Linked-In, does not mean that it is real.

In this confusing ‘post truth world’, these stories (lies) are rife as ever. We have engrained a procedure when assessing clothing before we buy it, right? We each need to develop our own method of Sagan’s ‘Baloney Detector Kit’ before promoting or making purchases after reading utopian stories.

They prove that ideas can raise money quickly

For all the discredit that comes from completely ignoring the rules of thermodynamics, they do sort of create a blueprint for raising money. Design without function is bad; function without design is still far from perfect. The speed that these campaigns can spread should inspire engineers towards considering design more. This plus the presentation of their campaigns can drive an amazing result when crowdfunding.

They perpetuate the narrative

If you’re reading this, you care about water but you also care about the truth. These campaigns have in some way helped the ‘water innovation’ narrative – spreading awareness that there is more to be done, that it’s OK to push the rules of design (…but not science).

In conclusion, yes it is bad that these scams have raised so much money and have no way of living up to their promises. However, I hope the engineering professors show students these campaigns as case studies to inspire what’s achievable. If a product based on lies and falsehoods can generate a quarter of a million dollars in 24 hours – imagine what something that will really work can do.

Originaly posted on: Future Desalination

Video 1: Fontus Self-Filling Water Bottle BUSTED!
Video 2: Waterseer -BUSTED!

Media

Taxonomy

• Treatment
• Policy
• Technology
• Research
• Finance and Markets
• Fundraising
• Advertising