81–90 of 97 posts
That's simple - because the production batch that covers all the remaining backorders is already on its way: https://puri.sm/posts/where-is-my-librem-5-part-3/
> So why does the email to their investors say it will be in stock in just 8 weeks, whereas their website says 52 weeks? That's simple - because the production batch that covers all the remaining backorders is already on its way: https://puri.sm/posts/where-is-my-librem-5-part-3/
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…
> So why does the email to their investors say it will be in stock in just 8 weeks, whereas their website says 52 weeks? That's simple - because the production batch that covers all the remaining backorders is already on its way: https://puri.sm/posts/where-is-my-librem-5-part-3/
Good enough that I just updated the article to mention it. However, the email sent to prospective investors specifically says In stock by July which is still questionable. Either that's wrong, or the claim of a 52-week lead time is wrong, or a 52-week lead time qualifies as "In Stock." Even if that is addressed in that blog post.
It simply hasn't been updated and at this point likely won't be until it shows "in stock" instead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good enough that I just updated the article to mention it. However, the email sent to prospective investors specifically says In stock by July which is still questionable. Either that's wrong, or the claim of a 52-week lead time is wrong, or a 52-week lead time qualifies as "In Stock." Even if that is addressed in that blog post.
> the claim of a 52-week lead time is wrong It simply hasn't been updated and at this point likely won't be until it shows "in stock" instead.
> I’m starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel, but hitting shipping parity will depend on the E5 production run going according to plan, and our not hitting any more supply chain snags along the way. Because of this uncertainty, I have not yet updated our 52-week lead time on new Librem 5 orders, and will likely not update it until the E5 production run is complete and waiting for its turn to ship to customers. [...]
So, they are keeping the 52-week out of "uncertainty". Which is fine, by all means. However, they are quoting 8 weeks to investors without mentioning the uncertainty. Which is legally worse? Misleading customers, or misleading investors, if that uncertainty materializes? Especially on a sale that does not appear to meet other legal checkboxes like investor status verification?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the claim of a 52-week lead time is wrong It simply hasn't been updated and at this point likely won't be until it shows "in stock" instead.
They say in their blog post: > I’m starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel, but hitting shipping parity will depend on the E5 production run going according to plan, and our not hitting any more supply chain snags along the way. Because of this uncertainty, I have not yet updated our 52-week lead time on new Librem 5 orders, and will likely not update it until the E5 production run is complete and waiting…
> Especially on a sale that does not appear to meet other legal checkboxes like investor status verification?
According to you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By that definition of fraud (asking investors for cash repeatedly to not run out before turning a profit), many unicorn-status companies are fraud. It takes a long time to become profitable and I don’t see a problem if it’s not said that the company is.
Original writer here again. There is a difference here though, which is that those companies openly tell investors, "we're not profitable," and even have projections in their documentation for when they will be profitable assuming current growth continues. For example, Disney+ warns investors that it is not a profitable business but is trying to get to the point of profitability by the end of 2024. They also have reg…
Do they publish financial statements to their investors or prospective investors? Perhaps it would be useful to ask for those and see for yourself. If they mislead investors through not providing statements or playing games with the numbers, then you have evidence (!) — something that would strengthen your article a lot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They say in their blog post: > I’m starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel, but hitting shipping parity will depend on the E5 production run going according to plan, and our not hitting any more supply chain snags along the way. Because of this uncertainty, I have not yet updated our 52-week lead time on new Librem 5 orders, and will likely not update it until the E5 production run is complete and waiting…
The post you're quoting has been written two months ago, and uncertainty tends to get reduced with time. > Especially on a sale that does not appear to meet other legal checkboxes like investor status verification? According to you .
According to an actual private equity manager in this very thread.
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.
That's like ... your opinion. It isn't the government's responsibility to make sure there isn't lead in the food you eat, but we have the FDA. Ditto usury laws, medicine laws etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By that definition of fraud (asking investors for cash repeatedly to not run out before turning a profit), many unicorn-status companies are fraud. It takes a long time to become profitable and I don’t see a problem if it’s not said that the company is.
Usually "investment" implies that you give money to a company so they can cover up front costs (such as tooling costs, r&d costs etc) that will allow them to profit later. The idea is that a certain amount of money now will allow them to make a profit later by selling whatever product the investment allows them to build. But that doesn't seem to be the case here. Reading between the lines, it sounds like Purism lacks…
In sociology, 'investment' often means the expenditure of time or energy into a cause or relationship. In personal finance, 'investment' pertains specifically to the use of financial instruments or products. Overall, 'investment' can mean many things; there isn't really one thing it usually implies.
In the context of business and finance, 'investment' indicates the allocation or transfer of money/resources. However, this doesn't necessarily lead to the acquisition of any assets other than the money itself. For example, I could invest capital into my own company without immediately allocating that money to specific uses — it could just sit in the corporate bank account. The funds could eventually be used in a variety of ways. While it's both morally and ethically commendable to inform investors about the intended uses of their investments, there's no definitive principle stating that such investments must be allocated to specific items like tooling, R&D, and the like.
I understand why people who think that investment implies that would be disappointed by Librem's actions here. But from a business perspective, investing into fulfilling past orders is fine, it still adds business net worth and investor value. Many large companies like Tesla do it, too.
It is not a Ponzi scheme unless the previous investors are directly paid dividends from new investors. A Ponzi scheme is a very specific term. Many businesses operate in a way in which investment grows the business, and this growth pays dividends to previous investors. That could be seen as a Ponzi-like scheme from some perspectives, but it would be a bit contrived, as this is how many highly-leveraged businesses operate.