From my understanding, FundersClub actually solves this crowdfunding problem by acting as the sole investor on the cap table. As far as you are concerned as a startup, there is only 1 investor, and if there are any shareholder approvals, you only have 1 shareholder to go to.
This is sort of the best of both worlds. The small investor gets the ability to invest in a (risky) company they wouldn't normally be able to, and collect (potentially) disproportionate rewards. The company doesn't have to deal with the hassle of having a ton of shareholders to contend with on the books. They are just along for the ride, and nothing more.
So they are much like a "virtual VC"? But you do understand that VCs have value because they bring "unfair advantage" or "connections" or "good advice & experience"?
FundersClub has to think of two sides of the problem - how to shield large number of inexperienced investors from the founders and how to provide network, unfair advantage and smart advice to the founders.
One of the biggest values of YC is the second part. Replicating this is going to be difficult.
This might work for the small investors. However, they are only currently admitting people with an annual income of 200k or a net worth of 1m. These "accredited investors" are probably in an economic position to just start investing in companies outright, and given FundersClub's middleman position, I don't see a huge reason to go through them were I an accredited investor.
This is sort of the best of both worlds. The small investor gets the ability to invest in a (risky) company they wouldn't normally be able to, and collect (potentially) disproportionate rewards. The company doesn't have to deal with the hassle of having a ton of shareholders to contend with on the books. They are just along for the ride, and nothing more.