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

41–50 of 121 posts

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

#41

Post by tim333 »

icpmacdo wrote: post #13
modeless wrote: post #2

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…

If a crowd funding website that was completely bitcoin based would it be able to avoid all SEC regulations? If there are regulations in the future is there a liability to creating this now?

No doesn't work like that. Raising funds is raising funds whether it's in us$, bitcoin, pork-belly futures or whatever. You could list in another country like on Seedrs in the UK and then presumably be subject to UK rather than US law. Although if most of the investors and assets were in the US the SEC might still try to stop it.

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

#42

Post by alexqgb »

asdfologist wrote: post #34
alexqgb wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kickstarter specifically prohibits equity deals with backers, as allowing them would place them in the crosshairs of the SEC. FYI.

Wow, you just missed the entire point of his post.

Actually, the dude (heavily) edited his original post after a bunch of people pointed out that he didn't know what he was talking about.

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

#44

Post by jes5199 »

djloche wrote: post #16
refurb wrote: post #12

Did Oculus raise more money after the Kickstarter or did these guys own 100% of the equity?

They did a $75M round recently and have been hiring like crazy.

at this point, we should read "hiring like crazy" as "trying to get acquired". Having a lot of employees boosts your valuation but does little for your ability to deliver a product

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

#45

Post by crummy »

GBond wrote: post #33
modeless wrote: post #2

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…

The real shame is not that the backers didn't a get a financial payout ('tho they should). The real shame is how Oculus' most passionate enthusiasts got burnt. They were in it for the shared vision but got a tough lesson in capitalism instead.

What exactly did they lose?

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

#46

Post by wwweston »

chrismonsanto wrote: post #19
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?

> 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. Perhaps limit the amount that can be invested without accreditation?

Pro: few people are likely to get scammed out of life-damaging amounts of money.

Con: might lead to a system where some scammers are skimming small amounts from large numbers of people, but not causing enough pain to do something about it.

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

#47

Post by dlp211 »

gfodor wrote: post #9
cookingrobot wrote: post #5

For $300 those backers got the promise of an awesome VR headset. I don't see why they should get equity for free on top of that. It would be nice if kickstarter campaigns could add equity as and option in the reward tiers, but it's not like these people gave their money for nothing in return.

I think this would be the idea. If there was even an option for equity, the entire sentiment of a quick flip changes. It becomes less about the company exploiting you and more about you not having enough faith to buy a few shares in addition to the prototype. People right now currently feel akin to a benefactor who put a kid through college only to have the kid turn their back on them down the road once they're succe…

And that is a stupid way to feel. Using your kid analogy, they didn't turn their backs on anyone, they took a better paying gig so that they can do more stuff for you. So that they can get you a quicker ROI by having more assets at their disposal, by being legitimized.

I don't understand any of your reactions to this. They took money, and so what? For a site that is dedicated to the entrepreneurial spirit, making it big, and "disrupting industries" you sure could have fooled me.

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

#48

Post by dlp211 »

kevingadd wrote: post #30
cookingrobot wrote: post #5

For $300 those backers got the promise of an awesome VR headset. I don't see why they should get equity for free on top of that. It would be nice if kickstarter campaigns could add equity as and option in the reward tiers, but it's not like these people gave their money for nothing in return.

You're assuming every backer paid 300. Some donated more, some paid less.

And? They knew the terms of the deal.

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

#49

Post by phantomb »

"a $2.4 million early-stage investment in what would become a $2 billion business in a year and a half, in return for 0.0% equity" No. Those backers weren't investing in a company, they were purchasing a prototype device and software package. In practice, that's how Kickstarter works. Sure, there will be a lot of backers who are happy that their deferred purchase is helping a project actually get off the ground, but I guarantee every person who handed over the $300 read over the rewards carefully.
Post reply on HN