Really wanted to support the phone development but im very glad i pulled out after it took over 6 months and they just kept pushing it out past the original timeline and then adding different versions that they would ship at different times.
Sorry Purism, I’m not investing. It’s (possibly) not even legal
31–40 of 97 posts
Re: Sorry Purism, I’m not investing. It’s (possibly) not even legal
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not. It serves as a counterbalance to much lighter reporting/auditing requirements for private vs. public companies. It's way easier for a private company to do some creative accounting and do away with your money without committing a criminally punishable offence. The idea is that if you have $1M in assets, you can tolerate that risk (or do your own due diligence), but if your entire life savings is something l…
It isn't the government's responsibility to protect people from their own mistakes. Accredited investor laws only serve as a gate keeping mechanism.
It is literally the SEC's responsibility to protect people from their own mistakes.
Re: Sorry Purism, I’m not investing. It’s (possibly) not even legal
#33Several articles on the blog — https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=gabrielsieben.tech — have been criticized for their quality. I must express my skepticism about this one as well. The article appears sensationalist, with numerous strong statements accompanied by qualifiers, such as "potentially illegally misleading" and "Ponzi scheme if the anecdotes are true." These claims, which rely heavily on anecdotes and hu…
Hello, author here. I accept that, and will try to write better in the future. However, I also subscribe to the philosophy that if nobody talks, who will? And so if I have questions, I would rather raise them and be 25% wrong, than leave them undiscussed until they potentially hurt someone. At a minimum, everything gets clarified, I might look like an idiot, but there's still a clarity there that there wasn't previou…
I think your writing style is totally fine. If something feels icky and sounds like a fraud, it's fine to call it out, and use whatever words you want to do so.
Re: Sorry Purism, I’m not investing. It’s (possibly) not even legal
#34Several articles on the blog — https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=gabrielsieben.tech — have been criticized for their quality. I must express my skepticism about this one as well. The article appears sensationalist, with numerous strong statements accompanied by qualifiers, such as "potentially illegally misleading" and "Ponzi scheme if the anecdotes are true." These claims, which rely heavily on anecdotes and hu…
Hello, author here. I accept that, and will try to write better in the future. However, I also subscribe to the philosophy that if nobody talks, who will? And so if I have questions, I would rather raise them and be 25% wrong, than leave them undiscussed until they potentially hurt someone. At a minimum, everything gets clarified, I might look like an idiot, but there's still a clarity there that there wasn't previou…
I appreciate your openness to feedback and encourage you to delve deeper into the subjects of your articles moving forward.
Consider alternative perspectives, and attempt to steel-man the position opposite to the one you wish to present. As you mention ChatGPT, GPT can assist in providing counterarguments, helping you see the fuller picture.
Keep in mind that condemning articles can have consequences. While Librem could hurt their investors — the risk is actually inevitable in most businesses, your blog can also harm those striving towards a noble cause.
Best of luck with your future articles.
Re: Sorry Purism, I’m not investing. It’s (possibly) not even legal
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn’t really true. The law as written might be easily understood by reading it. But that is not the entire story. The US has multiple forms of law, Legislative Law, as ratified by the Legislative Body. Then Case Law which is law introduced by Judicial courts which may or may not invalidate, expand, or change the legislative law. The US also has courts under specific bodies such as the EPA. Lawyers exist to be ab…
I think you're reinforcing my point, not disagreeing with it. You cite examples where the law forbids something, but a judicial opinion allows it. So one easy way to avoid doing something illegal in all of your examples is to simply follow the law as written . Sure, maybe with legal counsel you could push things a little further, get your nunchuck possession charge dismissed because you were pulled over two hundred y…
You're assuming the rules you need to follow are a superset of the plain text of the law as written. This is incorrect.
One example: assault with a deadly weapon. The definition of "deadly weapon" various wildly in different jurisdictions and isn't always clear simply from the case law. In some jurisdictions it means any weapon theoretically capable of being deadly, so slapping someone with a flip-flop (real example) could count.
Re: Sorry Purism, I’m not investing. It’s (possibly) not even legal
#36The whole accredited investor thing is bullshit
It's not. It serves as a counterbalance to much lighter reporting/auditing requirements for private vs. public companies. It's way easier for a private company to do some creative accounting and do away with your money without committing a criminally punishable offence. The idea is that if you have $1M in assets, you can tolerate that risk (or do your own due diligence), but if your entire life savings is something l…
In Germany the limit is 1000€ on a single investment for investors who do not disclose their financial status. 10000€ for those who can prove they have more than 100000€ in cash and beyond that you are at most allowed to invest twice your monthly income up to 25000€.
This is for crowdinvesting only but this convertible note campaign is very similar to crowdinvesting campaigns in Germany. Although it is possible for companies to let investors invest directly, usually there is a licensed financial advisor running the crowdinvesting platform that handles payments by delegating them to a licensed payment service provider. The financial advisor is also supposed to screen investments and make sure the investor understands what form of investment he is making and how much risk he is taking on.
If you want to get past these limits you wouldn't go through a crowdinvesting campaign.
Re: Sorry Purism, I’m not investing. It’s (possibly) not even legal
#37This doesn't seem to be going well: Nov 2022: 2,664,000 / $3,500,000 Dec 2022: 2,664,000 / $3,500,000 Today: 2,725,750 / $3,500,000 +$61k in 6 months it not enough to run a hardware company or justify such an odd / risky campaign. I'm also doubtful the $2.6m is real. They've made a wonderful product with an admirable approach, but something feels wrong here. [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20221128104123/https://puri…
> I'm also doubtful the $2.6m is real.
Is there any chance the $2.1 million they raised back all the way back in 2017 is being factored into the number to make it look better? (I literally have nothing to back this theory, I'm just asking.)
Re: Sorry Purism, I’m not investing. It’s (possibly) not even legal
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're reinforcing my point, not disagreeing with it. You cite examples where the law forbids something, but a judicial opinion allows it. So one easy way to avoid doing something illegal in all of your examples is to simply follow the law as written . Sure, maybe with legal counsel you could push things a little further, get your nunchuck possession charge dismissed because you were pulled over two hundred y…
You're assuming the rules you need to follow are a superset of the plain text of the law as written. This is incorrect. One example: assault with a deadly weapon. The definition of "deadly weapon" various wildly in different jurisdictions and isn't always clear simply from the case law. In some jurisdictions it means any weapon theoretically capable of being deadly, so slapping someone with a flip-flop (real example)…
You're focused on some extremely narrow view that's right on the legal/illegal boundary and thinking that's the whole world.
The easiest way to not go to jail for assault with a deadly weapon is to not assault people. It is very easy to follow this guideline, and the success rate is quite high (most people in the world are not currently in jail).
If you absolutely must assault someone, and you decide to use a weapon, then yes, you will likely want to hire a lawyer to write a bunch of carefully-argued pages about why you shouldn't go to jail.
But it's not like you would just be walking down the street, knocking people out with a tire-iron as one does, and then get ambushed by the complexities of the law.
Re: Sorry Purism, I’m not investing. It’s (possibly) not even legal
#39I love Purism. I'm writing this on one of their laptops, which is beautiful and by far my favourite laptop (and I had one of the good MacBooks!). But watching them destroy themselves isn't fun. I've recommended Purism laptops to multiple people, only to have Purism ship them faulty machines (twice now, and my laptop shipped with a defective screen). I've watched the phone development with interest, but never got to t…
[flagged]
Re: Sorry Purism, I’m not investing. It’s (possibly) not even legal
#40Oh, shit. This sounds like a non-financial person (an engineer?) acting out of desperation, trying to plug a financial hole. Without realizing that they are breaking very serious securities rules, and SEC will be in their full right to shut the entire business down. I wish they would talk to a good accountant first. I believe they have good intentions, but this could cost them more than they think.
>I wish they would talk to a good accountant first. I believe they have good intentions, but this could cost them more than they think.
why do you assume they haven't spoken to an attorney? what is your expertise in this area? serious question.