61–70 of 97 posts
The 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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
This is not a court where we need to prove anything, it's just a discussion about a blog post. It's perfectly fine to say something sounds like a fraud based on limited knowledge.
We shouldn't trust companies by default, just because they promise things that we want.
If a company makes an investment offer that sounds a bit questionable, it's fine to say it sounds like fraud, even if we don't have any concrete evidence for it. It's on the company to provide information that makes them trustworthy. If their marketing materials are contradictive, or elude important info, that's more than enough to call them out for it.
Did you read the Brydge story [1]? They started selling preorders for some product as recently as January, when they already ran out of cash. Judging from the "investor email", it sounds like Purism is doing the same thing, except they aren't selling preorders anymore, but just asking for cash instead.
[1]: https://9to5mac.com/2023/05/04/brydge-keyboards-out-of-busin...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
the same kind of person who thinks that this company didn't consult their attorneys but is just winging it, so they decide to go on HN and just wing it, and they find good company here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
Sparking and sustaining a field is tough, and it's clear Purism has had difficulties.
I hope they get through these. I believe the movement relies on their existence and continued development.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
[flagged]
You asked (someone else) why one might "assume they haven't spoken to an attorney" [1]. I answered that. This is not the work product of competent securities counsel. (The promissory note per se looks fine. But it’s from 2021.)
As presently marketed, this has a high probability of being an illegal securities offering. If the issuer knows it's insolvent and isn't disclosing that, it could even be fraud.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
[flagged]
Source: am familiar with the rules and regulations in that area.
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.
Because an attorney who knew anything about securities law would have put a stop to this immediately.