4 ms·
seriously dude, do you like to argue for no particular reason? yes, it's likely not all investors will qualify -- not perfect, but it's reasonable to require s
by davemc500hats 17y ago
seriously dude, do you like to argue for no particular reason?
yes, it's likely not all investors will qualify -- not perfect, but it's reasonable to require some domain experience that can be provably audited. and yes, the investors who do qualify will likely not be completely sketchy and/or likely to commit fraud.
we picked a reasonable bar to get over that straddles both a rqmt of experience and some capital without making it so low that people could abuse it.
investing $300,000 in capital in 6 companies over 3 years does NOT seem like "virtually anyone" for "very little money".
your perspective again seems irrational & extreme.
- tptacek 17y agoMy perspective is that the "investor sponsorship" component of this bill is arbitrary, unfair, and will distort the market. I've been pretty consistent about this point throughout the whole "argument". If you don't want to continue arguing, stop arguing. I don't care what bar you picked for investors, except for the fact that it seems obvious that it's modelled on the tech investor clique. If you got the investor model perfect, I'd still have a problem with conflating investment with viability or value to the economy. I don't believe for one millisecond that you will concede anything about this bill, which you clearly passionately support. That doesn't bother me at all, for what it's worth.
- davemc500hats 17y agoi'm conceding about as much as you are, except i'm arguing from specific economic goals & benefits. you're arguing about "distortions" that appear to be subjective analysis. if you want to have a discussion where we have the chance to change each others' minds, then perhaps we should be talking about what parts of investor mentality are in question, and why that isn't better than doing nothing / status quo.