Sorry Purism, I’m not investing. It’s (possibly) not even legal • Hacker News Board

Re: Sorry Purism, I’m not investing. It’s (possibly) not even legal

#91

Post by mnky9800n » Thu, May 11, 2023, 3:03 PM UTC

marcus_holmes wrote: post #51

fsckboy wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> they're not trying to destroy themselves, they're trying to save themselves. You're kicking a friend when he's down. I didn't mean about the investment. I meant the continued problems and lack of focus. I know they're trying to save the company, but the problems they face were of their own making. It's painful watching them do this. > Why you gotta be salty about it? I didn't mean it to come across as salty. It's j…

Hi, you bought ice cream from my truck for 10$, would you also like to give me 5$? I'll give you some of it back if we make a profit one day. Oh, and I realize it took me a week to deliver the ice cream and it was melted by that point, but it would be nice if you could invest in our company. We are innovating in the ice cream space and innovation cannot have a price.

Re: Sorry Purism, I’m not investing. It’s (possibly) not even legal

#92

Post by andrewflnr » Thu, May 11, 2023, 3:22 PM UTC

jmillikin wrote: post #11

andrewflnr wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> what is legal or not is best left to those with a background and education in the legal profession Tangent, but I just want everyone to recognize how obscenely absurd this (largely true) sentence is. How are we, the vast bulk of non-law-school-graduates, supposed to follow the law in our day to day lives if just figuring out what's legal literally requires multiple college degrees?

Many people posting on the internet have this strange idea that American law is opaque and difficult to understand, but in general it's actually pretty accessible. If you can read software, you can read American legal documents. The reason lawyers get paid so much is that if you're doing something that is right on the boundary[0] then the difference between legal and illegal might be extremely fuzzy, and also worth a…

My dude, I'm an American who has done research to try to find out what's legal or even what the requirements are for some things. I know from experience that it's a mess.

I don't consider "just stay away from the boundary" to be an adequate answer. Avoiding a vaguely defined zone of peril is not freedom. And as a peaceful, law-abiding citizen of a democracy, the law is supposed to work for me, to make my life better. Instead it works for those willing to casually break the law, and makes those rich enough to hire lawyers rich enough. If that doesn't sound like a problem to you, I don't know what else to say.

Re: Sorry Purism, I’m not investing. It’s (possibly) not even legal

#93

Post by MichaelZuo » Thu, May 11, 2023, 4:15 PM UTC

donavanm wrote: post #67

fsckboy wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

companies can't refund money they don't have; people who are owed money become creditors in bankruptcy. The company can, however, attempt to stay afloat and prosper enough to make creditors whole.

Im not in the US, but here in Australia this would smell of “trading insolvent” and is a short path to piercing the veil/personal liability, fines, and prohibitions against serving as directors or officers for everyone involved.

It's a much higher bar in the U.S. to do so. Which is part of the reason why startups love moving from Australia to the U.S. but not the other way around.

Re: Sorry Purism, I’m not investing. It’s (possibly) not even legal

#94

Post by [deleted] » Fri, May 12, 2023, 5:13 PM UTC

clnq wrote: post #34

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hello, author here. I accept that, and will try to write better in the future. However, I also subscribe to the philosophy that if nobody talks, who will? And so if I have questions, I would rather raise them and be 25% wrong, than leave them undiscussed until they potentially hurt someone. At a minimum, everything gets clarified, I might look like an idiot, but there's still a clarity there that there wasn't previou…

I appreciate your openness to feedback and encourage you to delve deeper into the subjects of your articles moving forward. Consider alternative perspectives, and attempt to steel-man the position opposite to the one you wish to present. As you mention ChatGPT, GPT can assist in providing counterarguments, helping you see the fuller picture. Keep in mind that condemning articles can have consequences. While Librem co…

[deleted]

Re: Sorry Purism, I’m not investing. It’s (possibly) not even legal

#95

Post by [deleted] » Fri, May 12, 2023, 5:19 PM UTC

clnq wrote: post #87

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Original writer here again. There is a difference here though, which is that those companies openly tell investors, "we're not profitable," and even have projections in their documentation for when they will be profitable assuming current growth continues. For example, Disney+ warns investors that it is not a profitable business but is trying to get to the point of profitability by the end of 2024. They also have reg…

Hmm, that assumption or expectation can be very disappointing. Perhaps that is a part of why you feel so negatively about Librem? I would assume that most companies of that size have some sort of financial concerns, challenges or problems in the near to mid future. Do they publish financial statements to their investors or prospective investors? Perhaps it would be useful to ask for those and see for yourself. If the…

[deleted]

Re: Sorry Purism, I’m not investing. It’s (possibly) not even legal

#96

Post by SturgeonsLaw » Sat, May 13, 2023, 4:52 AM UTC

tastyfreeze wrote: post #17

matrix_overload wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not. It serves as a counterbalance to much lighter reporting/auditing requirements for private vs. public companies. It's way easier for a private company to do some creative accounting and do away with your money without committing a criminally punishable offence. The idea is that if you have $1M in assets, you can tolerate that risk (or do your own due diligence), but if your entire life savings is something l…

It isn't the government's responsibility to protect people from their own mistakes. Accredited investor laws only serve as a gate keeping mechanism.

My biggest gripe with it is that it's gatekeeping based on net worth. There should be a mechanism to become an accredited investor with any income/wealth level if you pass a financial knowledge exam.

Yeah, those can be gamed, but if someone is willing to cheat on a test in order to remove their legal protections and access risky investments, well, good luck to them.

Re: Sorry Purism, I’m not investing. It’s (possibly) not even legal

#97

Post by greyface- » Sat, May 13, 2023, 5:11 PM UTC

SturgeonsLaw wrote: post #96

tastyfreeze wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't the government's responsibility to protect people from their own mistakes. Accredited investor laws only serve as a gate keeping mechanism.

My biggest gripe with it is that it's gatekeeping based on net worth. There should be a mechanism to become an accredited investor with any income/wealth level if you pass a financial knowledge exam. Yeah, those can be gamed, but if someone is willing to cheat on a test in order to remove their legal protections and access risky investments, well, good luck to them.

This exists.

https://www.finra.org/registration-exams-ce/qualification-ex...

Pass any one of these, and you're an accredited investor.