Sorry Purism, I’m not investing. It’s (possibly) not even legal
gabrielsieben.tech
Sorry Purism, I’m not investing. It’s (possibly) not even legal
1–10 of 97 posts
Re: Sorry Purism, I’m not investing. It’s (possibly) not even legal
#2I am curious if there is a market for a "get things done" phone that runs a RTOS like the old BlackBerries and prioritizes LTS and operational efficiency above all else. Given startup cost I assume it would be in the US$3,000+ range which is not crazy for an "essential to business" device with guaranteed 10 year support and would still be far cheaper than something like Vertu.
Re: Sorry Purism, I’m not investing. It’s (possibly) not even legal
#3> a 21-year-old software developer
In the past I have seen self-certification for Accredited Investor status, as well as out-sourced services that verify some data for a determination.
I think response around what is legal or not is best left to those with a background and education in the legal profession.
Re: Sorry Purism, I’m not investing. It’s (possibly) not even legal
#4These emails have been bizarre. Seemingly because I once crowdfunded the librem 5 my email address ended up on an "investor-relations" mailing list which periodically solicited, well, investments. Bonus points to the enlightened soul who realised that reply-all was open and described it as a Ponzi scheme, and to Purism themselves for having a non-functional unsubscribe page for the list. (They did remove me when I asked last September.)
Re: Sorry Purism, I’m not investing. It’s (possibly) not even legal
#5> a 21-year-old software developer In the past I have seen self-certification for Accredited Investor status, as well as out-sourced services that verify some data for a determination. I think response around what is legal or not is best left to those with a background and education in the legal profession.
Original writer here. I wrote it initially because it would certainly not be legal for me to invest being not an Accredited Investor, and also because the "Accredited Investor" gibberish reeks of similar disclaimers used with ICOs (aka shitcoins). However, I agree that I cannot determine and have amended the title to include "(possibly)" as I do my best to argue; and I believe that Purism may well be violating the plain language of the relevant SEC sections that got certain shitcoins (and more legitimate ones like Ripple) into hot water.
At a minimum though, I think we can agree that it is questionable conduct.
Re: Sorry Purism, I’m not investing. It’s (possibly) not even legal
#6These emails have been bizarre. Seemingly because I once crowdfunded the librem 5 my email address ended up on an "investor-relations" mailing list which periodically solicited, well, investments. Bonus points to the enlightened soul who realised that reply-all was open and described it as a Ponzi scheme, and to Purism themselves for having a non-functional unsubscribe page for the list. (They did remove me when I as…
I didn't mention it in the article, but since when does any legitimate organization advertise that you will receive a "5% bonus on your investment value!" if you send cash now? Maybe I've missed some but just that wording...
Re: Sorry Purism, I’m not investing. It’s (possibly) not even legal
#7> a 21-year-old software developer In the past I have seen self-certification for Accredited Investor status, as well as out-sourced services that verify some data for a determination. I think response around what is legal or not is best left to those with a background and education in the legal profession.
There's nothing wrong with someone pointing out that something is illegal, for example I don't have to be a lawyer to note that stealing a car would violate criminal law. It's reasonable for the OP to note that if they were to invest in that deal, then someone must be breaking the law.
Note also that what you call "self-certification" is just ... it's how things are for everyone? It's not like you can ask the SEC for a piece of paper documenting that you qualify. There are some professional licenses that automatically count, but if you made $210,000 in W-2 income last year there's no report submitted to a central registry of People Allowed To Make Risky Investments.
Re: Sorry Purism, I’m not investing. It’s (possibly) not even legal
#8> a 21-year-old software developer In the past I have seen self-certification for Accredited Investor status, as well as out-sourced services that verify some data for a determination. I think response around what is legal or not is best left to those with a background and education in the legal profession.
There's nothing wrong with someone pointing out that something is illegal, for example I don't have to be a lawyer to note that stealing a car would violate criminal law. It's reasonable for the OP to note that if they were to invest in that deal, then someone must be breaking the law. Note also that what you call "self-certification" is just ... it's how things are for everyone? It's not like you can ask the SEC for…
Right. I am not a lawyer (writer here), but read this page (as called out in the article) about Rule 506(c).
https://www.sec.gov/education/smallbusiness/exemptofferings/...
The requirement they seem to follow is: "all purchasers in the offering are accredited investors and the issuer takes reasonable steps to verify purchasers’ accredited investor status"
Purism argues that everyone must be an accredited investor; but they state they take no steps to verify anyone. They even say that it is impossible to comply with the law ("since there is no way for Purism to validate your accredited investor status"). Well, what is it then? Are they securities or not? If they aren't securities, why the accredited investor requirement? Are you instead going under Rule 504, which seems to prohibit anything publicly offered? If 504 doesn't work and you are ignoring a requirement for 506, is there some other section, or is it just (arguably) flat-out illegal?
It doesn't take a lawyer to say that something's fishy. While the law is probably fuzzy on what that verification requires, Purism could at least just call people on the phone, and say, "hey, we need accredited investors, are you one? Do you fully understand what this means and what your obligations are?" And record the response for legal purposes.
Re: Sorry Purism, I’m not investing. It’s (possibly) not even legal
#9> a 21-year-old software developer In the past I have seen self-certification for Accredited Investor status, as well as out-sourced services that verify some data for a determination. I think response around what is legal or not is best left to those with a background and education in the legal profession.
> what is legal or not is best left to those with a background and education in the legal profession
Tangent, but I just want everyone to recognize how obscenely absurd this (largely true) sentence is. How are we, the vast bulk of non-law-school-graduates, supposed to follow the law in our day to day lives if just figuring out what's legal literally requires multiple college degrees?
Re: Sorry Purism, I’m not investing. It’s (possibly) not even legal
#10The whole accredited investor thing is bullshit