A Novel Dynamic Hierarchical Evaluation Framework for Strategic Overfunding Allocation Across Crowdfunding Typologies

The rapid growth of crowdfunding markets has created an important managerial challenge for entrepreneurs: when raised capital substantially exceeds funding targets, how should excess funds be allocated to maximize efficiency, meet stakeholder expectations, and mitigate financial risk? Past research focuses on achieving funding goals, lacking systematic guidance for preferred strategy selection amid overfunding. Furthermore, differing crowdfunding typologies (reward-based, equity-based, debt-based) involve distinct stakeholder relationships and capital obligations, while varying overfunding degrees lead to qualitatively different challenges. Nevertheless, past research has not established decision frameworks that integrate typology and the degree of overfunding, leaving entrepreneurs without contextualized strategic guidance. The present study develops a hierarchical compromise decision-support framework to evaluate excess capital allocation strategies while determining the preferred option across nine contexts (three typologies × three gradients). The study identifies critical factors affecting strategy evaluation and determines five strategic options (scaling project, enhancing quality, accelerating development, designating reserves, returning funds) across contexts. The findings reveal three insights: (1) typologies exhibit fundamental strategic divergences: reward-based crowdfunding transitions from capital preservation to quality enhancement as overfunding decreases; equity-based consistently prioritizes capital retention to meet long-term investor expectations; while debt-based adopts a conservative orientation, returning funds under high overfunding to reduce leverage risks; (2) critical factors vary with overfunding: high overfunding highlights stakeholder relationship management, moderate emphasizes operational execution, and mild focuses on foundational capabilities; (3) the interaction effect between typology and degree is significant, requiring entirely different responses across typologies. The present study contributes to crowdfunding research and practice as follows. Its primary contribution is a structured, expert-based decision-support framework that, to our knowledge, is among the first to compare preferred post-success allocations across typologies and gradients, which indicates that preferred strategies depend on contextual combinations rather than on single factors. The study identifies nonlinear overfunding effects, verifying that moderate overfunding facilitates capability building, while extreme overfunding leads to stakeholder management burdens. Practically, the study provides a foundation for platforms to design differentiated advisory services and offers contextualized frameworks for entrepreneurs and consultants, with essentials implications for strengthening resource allocation efficiency in crowdfunding ecosystems.