4 ms·
He is not putting money into his hobby. If you buy $30k worth of golf clubs, you have $30k worth of golf clubs. If you put $30k into a kickstarter project for
by bduerst 11y ago
He is not putting money into his hobby.
If you buy $30k worth of golf clubs, you have $30k worth of golf clubs.
If you put $30k into a kickstarter project for some digital assets exclusively in a piece of software that isn't even written yet, you don't own that.
That's not putting $30k into a hobby, but giving $30k to someone without even a contractual obligation for delivery. It's exactly why the SEC won't let non-accredited investing into crowdfunded equity projects, but the reality is that people already think they're buying something without getting equity.
- maxerickson 11y agoThere is at least an implied contract on Kickstarter. They say as much in their TOS: https://www.kickstarter.com/terms-of-use#section4 https://www.kickstarter.com/terms-of-use#section4
- marcoperaza 11y agoIf I want to spend $100,000 on ephemeral virtual items in a video game that might never actually be released, that's my problem, not the government's. I'm the one that earned the money, so I'm the one that decides how to spend it. It's totally inappropriate for the government to insert itself between two informed and consenting parties. A paternalist government is not compatible with a free society.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- bduerst 11y agoThe reason we have "paternalistic" organizations like the FTC and SEC is because many parties make informed, consenting agreements, and don't obligate them. How are you going to enforce your $100k agreement without a "paternalistic" organization? Consumer rights and protections are what creates scalable trade by enabling trust in our society.
- marcoperaza 11y agoLaws that arm people with more information are great. I'm a big fan. I'm not a fan of laws that prohibit certain contracts no matter how informed both parties are. It's sometimes necessary when there's a huge asymmetry in power, like in landlord-tenant relationships and in standard-form contracts that waive all liability (interestingly, this is something courts have recognized as a matter of common law, even in the absence of legislative protections). I don't think video game pre-orders, in-game purchases, and Kickstarter pledges by informed adults should one of the exceptions. As for who's going to enforce my $100k agreement, the same people that enforce any other contract, the courts.
- bduerst 11y ago> Civil court enforcement You had just said it's not appropriate for governments to insert itself between two informed, consenting parties, because it is paternalistic and not part of a free society. Also what does market efficiency have to do with anything? There are always going to be asymmetrical distributions of power because information is asymmetrical.
- marcoperaza 11y agoCourts enforce consensual contracts between two people. That's a basic function of government and doesn't restrict your rights, except that you must abide by your word. What this discussion is about is legal constraints on the contents of those contracts. A lot of what the SEC and FTC do is require appropriate information disclosure to protect consumers from deception. The SEC requires financial disclosures, auditing, etc. In the FTC's own words: "Federal Trade Commission has a broad mandate to protect consumers from fraud and deception in the marketplace". The idea is to make sure people have the information that they need to make informed decisions. Not to tell them what decisions they are and are not allowed to make once they have that information.