Wefunder and Republic report their own totals, not one market

The record

Wefunder's own homepage, as retrieved on 16 September 2026, states aggregate figures of $2.37 billion in transactions, 1.15 million investments, 4,409 founders funded, and 3,065 SPVs and funds, alongside a claim of a network of more than one million investors. Republic's own homepage, retrieved the same day and labelled 'Data as of 05/01/25,' states $2.6 billion in capital deployed, $1.5 billion in delegated digital assets, 3,000 global raises supported, 95 enterprise clients, 27 portfolio unicorns, and 3 million community members.

What the sources establish

Each platform states, at least partly, what its own number counts. Republic's page attaches a footnote to its aggregate figures stating they include aggregate figures from Republic and Seedrs platform to date, spanning several affiliated entities including OpenDeal Portal LLC and OpenDeal Broker LLC, and a separate footnote on its community-size figure describing it as covering users of republic.com along with related advised vehicles and its European-site users. Neither company's page states which figures are limited to Regulation Crowdfunding offerings specifically, since both platforms also run Regulation D and Regulation A activity, and Republic's own page separately describes Regulation A+, Regulation D, and Regulation S licenses and tokenized-asset activity.

Scope and revision

These are self-reported, unaudited platform statistics as each company's own page stated them on 16 September 2026 (Wefunder) and as of 1 May 2025 (Republic's own dated figure); neither is a regulator's tally like the SEC staff's own Regulation Crowdfunding report, and neither states a clear cutoff for what counts as a transaction or a raise beyond the entities its footnotes name. Because the two platforms count different things — Wefunder a transaction and investment count, Republic a capital-deployed figure spanning multiple entities and asset types — summing the two into one crowdfunding-market total would double- or mis-count activity that a reader cannot untangle from the public page alone.

The decision in front of you

An analyst citing platform-level totals should name the platform, the date the figure was read or stated, and the entities or offering types the platform's own footnote says are included, rather than presenting either number as a market-wide count. This is editorial practice drawn from what each page discloses about itself, not a claim about which platform is larger in the offering types this archive otherwise tracks.

• Does the cited figure come with a stated 'as of' date, or is it an undated homepage claim?
• Which entities or offering types does the platform's own footnote say the figure includes?
• Would combining two platforms' totals double-count an issuer or investor active on both?

A platform's own headline number is evidence of what that platform wants to report about itself, on the date it reported it, not a market census.