In spring and summer 2023, we shared our spiral investing Notion pages with around fifteen peers and allies, most of whom had some prior knowledge or understanding of our desire to reimagine the meaning and purpose of investing.

Here we’ve summarised some of the tensions, questions, and asks in the feedback we received, as well as highlighting some elements that gained real traction and resonated well.

The bits that resonated

• Yes, we need models that redistribute wealth and devolve power! The support we heard for our overarching goal - to build models that redistribute wealth and devolve power, in service of community and ecological wealth - was very encouraging. We were pointed to many others who have done - or are in the process of doing - similar things, and we are heartened by the community of practice that already exists.
• Having a jargon buster is really helpful. The world of investing is notoriously (and deliberately) made to feel exclusive through language, and we received positive feedback about the jargon buster page. More generally, however, there was still a sense that some content might not land with wider, ‘non-financey’ audiences.
• The animation is a good explainer of what we’re trying to do, and helps with accessibility. This we found encouraging too, as our intention with the animation was to co-develop some content that went beyond bullet points and word paragraphs. When we come to share examples of spiral investing in practice, we will lean on creative storytelling routes much more!

The tensions, the asks, and the questions

• Show us what this means in practice! The most common single piece of feedback we received was that, whilst these pages are good at laying out principles and rationale, people are crying out for tangible examples and honest reflections on challenges and joys of bringing this investment logic to life. We are super aware of this, and can point to others who have already brought these approaches to life (see page on peers and inspiration).

• Do/don’t use the word ‘investing’… Some people really like the use of the word ‘investing’ to describe a process of power devolution and wealth distribution. They feel it is disruptive, challenging to the status quo.

  Others are not convinced! ‘Investment’ is too entangled with financial returns. Why use the word ‘investment’ when our practice looks more akin to gifting or redistribution? And if this (spiral investing) is how we define ‘investing’, what is everything that most people currently consider ‘investing’?

• Isn’t this just (participatory) grant making? Another very common piece of feedback, typically resulting from the version of spiral investing that looks at building community- and movement-governed funds to distribute resource.

• Are we investing in things that are revenue generating? Or not? Or both? From the perspective of the ‘investor’ (wealth holders, foundations, etc.), the financial return profile of spiral investing looks like a range of 0% to minus 100%. Some peers like the flexibility allowed in this range; others think our approach could be more interesting, different, and meaningful if it rested at one or other end of that range.

• Is there a risk that this just become impact investing re-branded? This feels like the risk of ‘capture’ as we put ‘spiral investing’ out into the wider world. There’s a worry that people or organisations view it as just something to allocate a few % of an otherwise mainstream, extractive portfolio, and use it to impact-wash. That’s a very real risk, and one we know we will need to think about carefully over the coming years.