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

Purism is seeking investment from individuals

puri.sm

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 74 posts

Re: Purism is seeking investment from individuals

#31

Post by stu2b50 »

AlbertCory wrote: post #11

There are already Socially Responsible Mutual Funds with none of this "accredited investor" stuff. Why would you throw your money away on this? You have no idea whatsoever about what they're going to do with it, except some vague high-sounding words. More to the point, you don't know what % of the ultimate profits, if there are any, will flow to the backers and not to you.

I mean this is a terrible investment no matter what. 3% interest that, let's be honest, there's serious doubt as to whether you'll actually see? From an investment standpoint it's the lowest of junk bonds without a particularly high interest rate either.

There's a million things with both better upside and safety.

Re: Purism is seeking investment from individuals

#33

Post by myself248 »

asah wrote: post #12
Aeolun wrote: post #6

What the hell. You need to have assets exceeding 1M to invest $1000? I don’t need that to buy any other stock, why would I need it here? Hell, how does it even apply to people not living in the US in the first place.

Multi decade angel investor here: accredited investor requirements are completely normal, including the good faith clause.

So I don't make a billion bucks a year, but I'd be completely comfortable throwing a few grand at Purism.

If I check the "yeah I'm cool" box even though the SEC wouldn't think I'm cool, am I just forfeiting some sort of recourse if Purism flops and I lose my money? Or am I opening myself up to getting in serious trouble?

(Likewise, I want to invest in Aptera but I don't know anything about this. I feel like the main thing it'll accomplish is making my taxes more complicated, which at my level is a huge step in complexity and cost for a minuscule step in returns.)

Re: Purism is seeking investment from individuals

#34

Post by AlexTWithBeard »

fsflover wrote: post #19
AlexTWithBeard wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure about the scam, but my bayesian bullshit filter is triggered by the "unlike all the evil for-profit corporations, we're a white'n'fluffy company aiming for the greater good".

They have proven this by numerous contributions to FLOSS [0], releasing laptops with kill switches [1] and neutralized Intel ME [2], FSF-approved OS [3], FSF-endorsed phone [4] and so on. [0] https://puri.sm/posts/purism-and-linux-5-13/ [1] https://puri.sm/security/ [2] https://puri.sm/projects/coreboot/ [3] https://www.fsf.org/news/fsf-adds-pureos-to-list-of-endorsed... [4] https://www.fsf.org/givingguide/v11/

Well, in this case good for them and shame on my bayesian filter.

I wish I were an "accredited investor according to Rule 501 under the Securities Act of 1933", because from your links it looks like a kind of good I'd be willing to invest in.

Re: Purism is seeking investment from individuals

#35

Post by wmf »

thrill wrote: post #8
OrvalWintermute wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many crowdfunding sites also have similar language, as most claims of accredited investor status do not actually require you to prove that status. If Joe Sixpack buys in, and made a false claim, that would be on him/her. Some of the previous requirements around accreditor investor status have changed though https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2020/09/18/sec-expands-defin... https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2020-191

"If Joe Sixpack buys in, and made a false claim, that would be on him/her." You would think that would be the way that it is, but is most assuredly is not.

Yeah, the SEC seems to almost always treat the investor as the victim regardless of intent.

Re: Purism is seeking investment from individuals

#37

Post by ianai »

fmajid wrote: post #28
telendram wrote: post #9

Why does it sound so much like a scam ?

Before anyone considers putting money there, they should read this interview by their former CTO. Sounds like a train wreck to me: https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Zlatan-T...

Reading that, I wonder whether a start up would have a better time offering OS/firmware support for already shipping, mass produced devices. i.e. Buy the latest XPS 15 and get to work making an installer that disables all the things they want to disable (intel ME off the top of mind). Doing similar with phone models, etc. I wonder whether this could be done for Windows drivers, for that matter.

Re: Purism is seeking investment from individuals

#38

Post by windthrown »

OrvalWintermute wrote: post #5
andreareina wrote: post #2

They require that you're an accredited investor, but later note "This is a good faith requirement, since there is no way for Purism to validate your accredited investor status". Yikes. This had to go through legal right? I'm gobsmacked that either they or the SEC think that not checking is fine. What happens if Joe Sixpack buys in?

Many crowdfunding sites also have similar language, as most claims of accredited investor status do not actually require you to prove that status. If Joe Sixpack buys in, and made a false claim, that would be on him/her. Some of the previous requirements around accreditor investor status have changed though https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2020/09/18/sec-expands-defin... https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2020-191

> If Joe Sixpack buys in, and made a false claim, that would be on him/her

I doubt the SEC sees it that way. The core purpose of accredited investor requirements is to protect Joe Sixpack from opening themselves up to a bunch of liability.

Re: Purism is seeking investment from individuals

#40

Post by Apocryphon »

In light of some of the questions here, why does every for-profit company that tries to make money out of open source, and build a substantial brand out of it, turn shady? Some implode over it- CyanogenMod, CopperheadOS, or the bigger ones lose credibility or become a mess of cancelled projects- Canonical, Mozilla.
Post reply on HN