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

81–90 of 121 posts

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

#81

Post by sc68cal »

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…

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.

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

#82

Post by anigbrowl »

forrestthewoods wrote: post #64
pushrax wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand your reasoning – the point of selling equity is to have more money available for immediate use. If they had followed this path, they might have raised even more capital.

$300 doesn't get you a headset AND equity. You might take $300 from person A to manufacture a headset to sell to person B for $300. But person A doesn't get both.

how about $400 getting you a headset and $100 of equity? You're being obtuse.

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

#83

Post by hrjet »

dlp211 wrote: post #48
kevingadd wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

And? They knew the terms of the deal.

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.

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

#84

Post by gojomo »

anigbrowl wrote: post #56
gojomo wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This has been explained to you about 100 times already, why not start with your best argument instead of pretending the question has never been asked before? For the record I support raising equity through things like Kickstarter and lowering the accreditation threshold for small investments, but you're being extremely disingenuous here.

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 government policies wealth-oblivious, the same way they're race-, gender-, or religion- oblivious?

Why not base any necessary protections on objective tests of knowledge and ability, as with driver or occupational licensing?

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

#85

Post by saraid216 »

shiftpgdn wrote: post #17
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?

I know it's a bit of a libertarian viewpoint but it is not the government's job to be my nanny. If I wish to throw all of my money down the toilet on some hopeless start-up I should be allowed to do so.

This makes sense when the only actors involved are you, the start-up, and the government. In such a case, I would agree with you. To explain why such a case does not exist, I'll ask you this:

Why is the most important piece of information Kickstarter shares with you the amount already pledged? You can see this in their page layout and in their various widgets.

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

#86

Post by saraid216 »

crummy wrote: post #45
GBond wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Faith.

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

#87

Post by saraid216 »

alexqgb wrote: post #65
asdfologist wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh I see. This highlights an interesting flaw in the HN edit functionality - it can make the child posts look stupid.

Yes, and moreso to people who are not, themselves, terribly careful readers. Savvier folks can read a string of knowledgable corrections to a point that (apparently) wasn't made then work out what must have happened easily enough.

It's honestly frustrating to go down a well-commented post and see a half-dozen "the title is misleading" posts... and then finally one that actually quotes the old title, basically nullifying the validity of most of the discussions one just read.

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

#88

Post by semiel »

yeukhon wrote: post #35
ama729 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> First Oculus gave out the perks they promised to deliver, haven't they? That's the whole deal with backers. You back a project and you should receive the promised perk in return. You don't back a project just to get the perks though most of the time, you back a project to support a company grow and thrive. IMO they clearly broke the social contract between them and the backers.

I don't dispute they want the final product in the end. They agree with Oculus' vision so they back them up. But why are people feel upset? Two reasons: 1. Some people feel they are entitled to share the acquisition because without their early support (via KS crowdfunding) Oculus may never get that $2B acquisition, or/and 2. They dislike the acquisition and they feel entitled to have a voice. Like public trading comp…

You are unreasonably conflating the legal situation and people's moral expectations. No one doubts that Oculus had every legal right to do what they did. People just feel it was unethical.

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

#89

Post by InclinedPlane »

icambron wrote: post #72

I'll just say it: Kickstarter is for suckers. When you give money to a project, you're doing one of two things: 1. Making a donation to a company. [1] 2. Preordering something that hasn't been built yet. Doing 1 is silly, since you don't really get anything in return. "But it makes it more likely that this thing I want will happen!" In some tiny marginal way, sure, but mostly it's going to happen because other people…

Who cares?

You seem to live in a universe where everything goes according to plan, that's not any real universe I'm aware of.

Kickstarter is about being a patron of creators for specific projects. Sometimes those projects are by people working in good faith, sometimes not. Sometimes those projects succeed, sometimes not.

The idea that this is somehow unusual is ridiculous. The idea that it should be discouraged is actively harmful. One of the most powerful things anyone can do with their money is to fund the development of things which change the world. Create products they wish existed, create art they desire, support creative or productive people, help others, etc.

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

#90

Post by res0nat0r »

semiel wrote: post #88
yeukhon wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't dispute they want the final product in the end. They agree with Oculus' vision so they back them up. But why are people feel upset? Two reasons: 1. Some people feel they are entitled to share the acquisition because without their early support (via KS crowdfunding) Oculus may never get that $2B acquisition, or/and 2. They dislike the acquisition and they feel entitled to have a voice. Like public trading comp…

You are unreasonably conflating the legal situation and people's moral expectations. No one doubts that Oculus had every legal right to do what they did. People just feel it was unethical.

I'd replace unethical wth the word jealous. They see big money and want in on it. They fulfilled their kickstarter and they are not forever in debt to the whims of their backers.
Post reply on HN