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

51–60 of 97 posts

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

#51

Post by marcus_holmes »

fsckboy wrote: post #39
marcus_holmes wrote: post #23

I 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]

> they're not trying to destroy themselves, they're trying to save themselves. You're kicking a friend when he's down.

I didn't mean about the investment. I meant the continued problems and lack of focus. I know they're trying to save the company, but the problems they face were of their own making. It's painful watching them do this.

> Why you gotta be salty about it?

I didn't mean it to come across as salty. It's just weird them asking their customers to be investors. Most businesses don't need to do this, and there are specific business structures available for those that do. Again, it's creating problems they don't need to create and it's painful watching them do this.

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

#52

Post by greyface- »

fsckboy wrote: post #49
greyface- wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

https://www.sec.gov/our-goals says:

> The SEC’s long-standing three-part mission—to protect investors, maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets, and facilitate capital formation

The Securities Act of 1933 contains the phrase "protection of investors" 27 times. It's quite literally part of their mandate.

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

#53

Post by fsckboy »

greyface- wrote: post #52
fsckboy wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

https://www.sec.gov/our-goals says: > The SEC’s long-standing three-part mission—to protect investors, maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets, and facilitate capital formation The Securities Act of 1933 contains the phrase "protection of investors" 27 times. It's quite literally part of their mandate.

where's the word "accredited"? and I said "from taking risks", so where does it say that? words matter, as you are trying to indicate.

Accredited investors are allowed to take risks without the level of oversight that "naive" investors are given. Selective quoting does not change that.

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

#54

Post by JumpCrisscross »

fsckboy wrote: post #40
matrix_overload wrote: post #12

Oh, 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.

> why do you assume they haven't spoken to an attorney?

Accredited investor requirements are NOT “a good faith requirement,” and there absolutely are ways “for Purism to validate your accredited investor status.” This statement, in a general solicitation e-mail no less, would not get sign off from any competent securities counsel.

Their fundraising site is tighter but still leaky. The notes are governed by Washington law [1], for example, which means e.g. they can’t ignore investor protections for non-Americans (as they claim). Also, other jurisdictions have securities laws—it is incorrect to claim if “not a United States citizen there is no restriction to invest” [2].

Finally, they are selling these notes through their store, which offers check out with Stripe. I was able to get to a credit-card checkout page. That’s a no-no on multiple levels.

(If you want to do something like this properly, look into Tier 1 Reg A+ offerings [3]. There are turnkey providers, e.g. StartEngine [4], though I'm skeptical of anyone requiring large up-front payments.)

[1] https://puri.sm/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/purism-convertibl...

[2] https://puri.sm/ir/convertible-note/

[3] https://www.bartonesq.com/news-article/reg-a-offerings-faqs/

[4] https://www.startengine.com/blog/regulation-a-what-entrepren...

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

#56

Post by jmillikin »

fsckboy wrote: post #50
jmillikin wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

  > it would be much more reasonable for OP to note that they don't
  > have a clue if anybody would be breaking the law
If someone who does not qualify as an Accredited Investor has invested into a security that is only allowed to be sold to people who qualify as Accredited Investors, then the law has clearly been broken by someone. You don't need to graduate from Yale to understand this.

  > 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?
The OP's opinion would likely be like mine, or like any reasonable person's, which is that (1) an illegal thing has clearly happened, (2) your kid has clearly done at least one illegal thing, (3) you may also have done something illegal.

What kind of person would look at the facts of that situation and think "hmm, I dunno, this law stuff is difficult, no way for me to know if I have any legal risk"?

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

#57

Post by thombles »

fsckboy wrote: post #43
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]

Oh good heavens no, I get annoyed at all manner of spammers. Only one of them is on topic today however.

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

#58

Post by JumpCrisscross »

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...

> since when does any legitimate organization advertise that you will receive a "5% bonus on your investment value!" if you send cash now

It’s not uncommon to give first-close investors a perk for committing early. That said, it invites scrutiny when targeted at retail investors. (In a vacuum of diligence no less.)

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

#59

Post by greyface- »

fsckboy wrote: post #53
greyface- wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.sec.gov/our-goals says: > The SEC’s long-standing three-part mission—to protect investors, maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets, and facilitate capital formation The Securities Act of 1933 contains the phrase "protection of investors" 27 times. It's quite literally part of their mandate.

where's the word "accredited"? and I said "from taking risks", so where does it say that? words matter, as you are trying to indicate. Accredited investors are allowed to take risks without the level of oversight that "naive" investors are given. Selective quoting does not change that.

"Accredited investor" is defined in 15 U.S.C. § 77b(a)(15). You can read the whole text of the Act here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/chapter-2A/subcha...

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

#60

Post by [deleted] »

fsckboy wrote: post #46
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.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN