11–20 of 121 posts
This is the real shame in the Oculus acquisition. If Oculus had been able to give away just 10% equity, every single Kickstarter backer would be $20,000 richer today. The sentiment would be completely different. The SEC needs to get in gear and start allowing equity crowdfunding pronto. The SEC's classification of millionaires as "accredited investors" who get first crack at all the best investment opportunities is e…
This is the real shame in the Oculus acquisition. If Oculus had been able to give away just 10% equity, every single Kickstarter backer would be $20,000 richer today. The sentiment would be completely different. The SEC needs to get in gear and start allowing equity crowdfunding pronto. The SEC's classification of millionaires as "accredited investors" who get first crack at all the best investment opportunities is e…
This is the real shame in the Oculus acquisition. If Oculus had been able to give away just 10% equity, every single Kickstarter backer would be $20,000 richer today. The sentiment would be completely different. The SEC needs to get in gear and start allowing equity crowdfunding pronto. The SEC's classification of millionaires as "accredited investors" who get first crack at all the best investment opportunities is e…
Indeed, I don't see anywhere else that Americans accept a "wealth test" to exercise a basic economic right (ownership of production). Note, the accredited-investor rules are not an "ability-to-pay" test. That would be fair: if you can write the check, you're in. The rules also are not a creditworthiness test: they don't evaluate reliability, and investors want to give money, not take it from others. And they're not a…
People on HN are pretty smart, but it's not representative of the entire population.
People get scammed by ridiculously obvious scams. Do you really think they have the ability to invest in a start-up in an intelligent way?
This is the real shame in the Oculus acquisition. If Oculus had been able to give away just 10% equity, every single Kickstarter backer would be $20,000 richer today. The sentiment would be completely different. The SEC needs to get in gear and start allowing equity crowdfunding pronto. The SEC's classification of millionaires as "accredited investors" who get first crack at all the best investment opportunities is e…
Kickstarter needs a no-acquisition clause
Did Oculus raise more money after the Kickstarter or did these guys own 100% of the equity?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed, I don't see anywhere else that Americans accept a "wealth test" to exercise a basic economic right (ownership of production). Note, the accredited-investor rules are not an "ability-to-pay" test. That would be fair: if you can write the check, you're in. The rules also are not a creditworthiness test: they don't evaluate reliability, and investors want to give money, not take it from others. And they're not a…
The reason for the accredited-investor regulation was to prevent people from putting all of their wealth into risky investments they know nothing about and being left destitute. People on HN are pretty smart, but it's not representative of the entire population. People get scammed by ridiculously obvious scams. Do you really think they have the ability to invest in a start-up in an intelligent way?
my complaint is mainly with the headline. if the word "kickstarter" was anywhere in the title I would not have clicked. d'oh.
it was "18 months ago Oculus did one of history's smartest rounds $2.4M for a 0.0% stake (wsj.com)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed, I don't see anywhere else that Americans accept a "wealth test" to exercise a basic economic right (ownership of production). Note, the accredited-investor rules are not an "ability-to-pay" test. That would be fair: if you can write the check, you're in. The rules also are not a creditworthiness test: they don't evaluate reliability, and investors want to give money, not take it from others. And they're not a…
The reason for the accredited-investor regulation was to prevent people from putting all of their wealth into risky investments they know nothing about and being left destitute. People on HN are pretty smart, but it's not representative of the entire population. People get scammed by ridiculously obvious scams. Do you really think they have the ability to invest in a start-up in an intelligent way?
Perhaps limit the amount that can be invested without accreditation?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed, I don't see anywhere else that Americans accept a "wealth test" to exercise a basic economic right (ownership of production). Note, the accredited-investor rules are not an "ability-to-pay" test. That would be fair: if you can write the check, you're in. The rules also are not a creditworthiness test: they don't evaluate reliability, and investors want to give money, not take it from others. And they're not a…
The reason for the accredited-investor regulation was to prevent people from putting all of their wealth into risky investments they know nothing about and being left destitute. People on HN are pretty smart, but it's not representative of the entire population. People get scammed by ridiculously obvious scams. Do you really think they have the ability to invest in a start-up in an intelligent way?