Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sorry Purism, I’m not investing. It’s (possibly) not even legal

gabrielsieben.tech

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 97 posts

Re: Sorry Purism, I’m not investing. It’s (possibly) not even legal

#41

Post by dwallin »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #5
OrvalWintermute wrote: post #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.

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 pl…

If you think something fishy is going on I recommend reporting them to the SEC and possible qualify for a nice reward if they actually are violating the law:

https://www.sec.gov/whistleblower

Re: Sorry Purism, I’m not investing. It’s (possibly) not even legal

#42

Post by iudqnolq »

jmillikin wrote: post #38
iudqnolq wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

You're mostly right. Bringing up tire irons is unfair when I explicitly mentioned things like flip-flops.

I think a better example might be peaceful protest. Sure you can just not do that, but a reasonable person might want to protest. Here's another example: police officer tells you can march across bridge, then arrests you for obstructing traffic. You intuitively think this sounds like entrapment. It isn't.

Re: Sorry Purism, I’m not investing. It’s (possibly) not even legal

#43

Post by fsckboy »

thombles wrote: post #4

These 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…

[flagged]

Re: Sorry Purism, I’m not investing. It’s (possibly) not even legal

#44

Post by fsckboy »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #6
thombles wrote: post #4

These 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...

[flagged]

Re: Sorry Purism, I’m not investing. It’s (possibly) not even legal

#45

Post by clnq »

newaccount74 wrote: post #33
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don’t want my criticism to be misinterpreted. The issue with the article is that it is lacking in factual substance compared to strong condemning language and speculation. This makes it seem less credible.

The choice of language in an isolated sense is fine. Unique writing styles can be more interesting to read, overall.

Re: Sorry Purism, I’m not investing. It’s (possibly) not even legal

#46

Post by fsckboy »

wander_homer wrote: post #26

The company seems to be in deep financial troubles. They've also been violating their refund policy and FTC rules as there are dozens of reports of customers who cancelled their orders months or years ago due to those absurd and frequent delays and they still don't have their money back.

companies can't refund money they don't have; people who are owed money become creditors in bankruptcy.

The company can, however, attempt to stay afloat and prosper enough to make creditors whole.

Re: Sorry Purism, I’m not investing. It’s (possibly) not even legal

#47

Post by gjsman-1000 »

fsckboy wrote: post #44
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

[flagged]

You are allowed to give perks to shareholders. That can be normal.

What is not normal is two conditions:

A. Advertising a perk as a reason to invest initially. Nobody normally buys stock because of a free gift box or a discounted vacation. It's a perk, but it's not something that is marketed as being a reason to buy stock. Also...

B. The perks are never direct financial benefits. They are always discounts, or little treats. Advertising that your investment will be increased by 5% to result in a greater investment is a direct, financial incentive for an initial investment as though investments are sales at a big-box store.

Re: Sorry Purism, I’m not investing. It’s (possibly) not even legal

#48

Post by fsckboy »

newaccount74 wrote: post #33
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> sounds like a fraud

it doesn't sound like a fraud, unless you or OP have expertise or information that you're not sharing? Fraud is a crime, you should have a basis for declaring it.

it might be a poor investment, it could be seen as signs of a shaky company, but accusing a people of fraud should have a basis.

disclaimer: i have no relationship to this company whatsoever, including I'm not a customer. i just don't like seeing facially ill-informed piling on

Re: Sorry Purism, I’m not investing. It’s (possibly) not even legal

#49

Post by fsckboy »

greyface- wrote: post #32
tastyfreeze wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

it is not the SEC's responsibility to protect accredited investors from taking risks, it's essentially the meaning of the term

Re: Sorry Purism, I’m not investing. It’s (possibly) not even legal

#50

Post by fsckboy »

jmillikin wrote: post #7
OrvalWintermute wrote: post #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.

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…

> it's reasonable for the OP to note that if they were to invest in that deal, then someone must be breaking the law.

it would be much more reasonable for OP to note that they don't have a clue if anybody would be breaking the law

Your teenaged kid takes your car without you knowing and kills somebody in a car accident. Drunk. On your alcohol. Did they steal it? What's your liability? Do you need to talk to a lawyer, or is it reasonable for OP to give you his opinion?

Post reply on HN