Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Aug. 1, 2012: When Oculus Asked for Donations

blogs.wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 121 posts

Re: Aug. 1, 2012: When Oculus Asked for Donations

#101

Post by lmm »

gojomo wrote: post #26
refurb wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Then why aren't there limits on lottery ticket purchases, or casino gambling, or making highly-leveraged real-estate purchases, or buying any number of other investments (including public stocks and options) that can send any initial amount of money to zero, quite rapidly? It's an archaic set of rules, from a dumber era, and totally out-of-sync with what people are capable of, and what real risks to "all of their wea…

Gambling is regulated. Loans for real-estate are regulated (sometimes imperfectly). Public stocks are simple and standardized enough that information about them is easily available and a buyer can be expected to understand.

Re: Aug. 1, 2012: When Oculus Asked for Donations

#102

Post by lmm »

icelancer wrote: post #98
sc68cal wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This reminds me of the same arguments that were made about Bitcoin and exchanges and how the mean old SEC wasn't letting the little guy get in on the action. The same thing would happen in the world of Kickstarter - big asset bubbles and rampant speculation, bogus funding campaigns, graft, and exploitation.

>The same thing would happen in the world of Kickstarter - big asset bubbles and rampant speculation, bogus funding campaigns, graft, and exploitation. I see. So what do you call a roulette table with obviously addicted gamblers throwing their money away, then? Good old American fun?

If the gamblers are obviously addicted then I believe the casino is legally required not to serve them.

Re: Aug. 1, 2012: When Oculus Asked for Donations

#103

Post by nemetroid »

shittyanalogy wrote: post #93

1) Kickstarter is not an investment platform. 2) Kickstarter is not a store. Kickstarter is ONLY for giving your money away to ideas you want to see succeed. The perks are a gamble at best and misleading at worst. If you give money to a kickstarter for any other reason, despite what the campaign or your friends or some blog tells you, you're quite unfortunately doing it wrong.

The perks are not a gamble. If the project creator fails to deliver, you are entitled to a refund. Straight from the Kickstarter Terms of Use:

> Project Creators are required to fulfill all rewards of their successful fundraising campaigns or refund any Backer whose reward they do not or cannot fulfill.

Re: Aug. 1, 2012: When Oculus Asked for Donations

#104

Post by alandarev »

makomk wrote: post #95
gojomo wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't recall any good explanations, maybe you could recount the best ones? It can't be because the rule provides strong protection of non-millionaire savings, because there are already endless ways for the gullible to lose all their money. It can't be millionaires are especially immune to common scams, because there's no evidence of that – and in fact quite a lot of evidence to the contrary. Why not make these gove…

The problem with small-scale investing is that the smaller your investment, the less you can afford to spend doing research and due diligence on what you're giving money to. Also, companies don't generally want to deal with a bunch of tiny investors if they don't have to, so even if it were legal most of the good investment opportunities still wouldn't be available to people who don't have enough money to count as qu…

If it was legal, there would be a kickstarter-like middle-man who would deal with this hassle, leaving everyone happy.

Re: Aug. 1, 2012: When Oculus Asked for Donations

#105

Post by guiomie »

refurb wrote: post #14
gojomo wrote: post #6

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?

Then why aren't pink sheets and over the counter stocks not banned also ?

Re: Aug. 1, 2012: When Oculus Asked for Donations

#106

Post by pessimizer »

gojomo wrote: post #26
refurb wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Then why aren't there limits on lottery ticket purchases, or casino gambling, or making highly-leveraged real-estate purchases, or buying any number of other investments (including public stocks and options) that can send any initial amount of money to zero, quite rapidly? It's an archaic set of rules, from a dumber era, and totally out-of-sync with what people are capable of, and what real risks to "all of their wea…

>why aren't there limits on lottery ticket purchases, or casino gambling,

Because they're profitable to the state. There have historically been blanket bans on both of these things at all wealth levels in the US. I still know of no private lotteries.

Both exist to exploit people who don't understand probability, and are essentially voluntary regressive taxes. When it comes to these two, now is the dumber era.

Re: Aug. 1, 2012: When Oculus Asked for Donations

#107

Post by danielweber »

pushrax wrote: post #62
rtpg wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what about the product they bought? I don't expect financial payout from a McDonald's franchisee because I bought some hamburgers from them.

The $10 backers didn't receive anything other than a pat on the back.

Which is what they were told they would get.

Re: Aug. 1, 2012: When Oculus Asked for Donations

#109

Post by hrjet »

joesb wrote: post #100
hrjet wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not a legal proceeding. It is more of an emotional outpouring of disappointment. The unwritten deal was that the funders were backing a low-overhead, indie organisation.

So they can never becomes big company? It's like a pathetic jealousy of wanting to help a homeless as long as you know they are never going to be richer than you.

You are conflating big with rich. It is possible to dislike the former and yet support the latter.

Often, when companies get big, the motives change from "making a great product" to "milking the user for more money".

Re: Aug. 1, 2012: When Oculus Asked for Donations

#110

Post by refurb »

guiomie wrote: post #105
refurb wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Then why aren't pink sheets and over the counter stocks not banned also ?

Because you need to buy them from a regulated seller (stock broker).
Post reply on HN