11–20 of 139 posts
The whole thing should be scrapped. This is supposed to be protecting unsophisticated investors, but most of the investments prevented here are equity investments in small businesses. While at the same time anybody is allowed to buy TVIX, a 2x leveraged VIX ETF, which is basically gambling.
A VC firm that offers nothing more than money (larger % of them than you'd think) doesn't want to compete with tons of syndicates consisting of average retail investors.
The "accredited investor" gatekeeping allows them to provide very little value and say "doesn't matter, you need us because we're the very few that are allowed to invest in your company".
The whole thing should be scrapped. This is supposed to be protecting unsophisticated investors, but most of the investments prevented here are equity investments in small businesses. While at the same time anybody is allowed to buy TVIX, a 2x leveraged VIX ETF, which is basically gambling.
The whole thing should be scrapped. This is supposed to be protecting unsophisticated investors, but most of the investments prevented here are equity investments in small businesses. While at the same time anybody is allowed to buy TVIX, a 2x leveraged VIX ETF, which is basically gambling.
Or any of the weird coin offerings. Which - if you believe in the thing not being a scam - is essentially a way of financing a company. Just like buying an investment in a small business.
It's an interesting name they gave this concept. According to Wikipedia, "accreditation is the process in which certification of competency, authority, or credibility is presented" But to be an accredited investor, all you need to do is have some money. There is no logical way that you can certify that a person's "competency, authority, or credibility" by merely knowing how much money is in their bank account.
Neither the existing nor the upcoming changes will protect someone like a lottery winner. Unless they seek qualified advice in setting something like a family office up, in which case their intentions are good at least.
I may be in the minority here, but I don't think the changes we needed were to make it easier for higher-ups to cash out of a company before rank-and-file get a chance to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or any of the weird coin offerings. Which - if you believe in the thing not being a scam - is essentially a way of financing a company. Just like buying an investment in a small business.
These coin offerings are generally violating securities law.
The whole thing should be scrapped. This is supposed to be protecting unsophisticated investors, but most of the investments prevented here are equity investments in small businesses. While at the same time anybody is allowed to buy TVIX, a 2x leveraged VIX ETF, which is basically gambling.
In all my dealings with the SEC (from working at multiple regulated investment platforms, AngelList and Republic, and now as a VC), it's become clear to me that they're extremely pragmatic and want to support innovation and create a level playing field for everyone. They have great intentions, but are obviously quite careful and conservative about their approach.
I think it's important to note two things:
1/ The stated mission of the SEC is "to protect investors; maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets; and facilitate capital formation." — the last part is important, and these changes go towards furthering that goal.
2/ The SEC is a civilian enforcement agency. They do not write the rules, they are here to interpret them and enforce them. They issue guidance, monitor, and sue entities that break the rules. The rules are written by congress. Even if the SEC wanted to change a rule, they could not do it without following the laws written by congress. At best, they can slightly tweak their interpretations of the rules (as we're seeing here).