> Which, again, requires lots of capital. > Negotiated at great legal expense. > Information rights are not the default. Every shareholder--common or preferred-

> Which, again, requires lots of capital. > Negotiated at great legal expense. > Information rights are not the default. Every shareholder--common or preferred--in a Delaware corporation has the right to inspect the company's books and records [1]. Enforcing this right, however, is expensive [2]. That goes back to my original criticism. If employees cant afford the legal expense of proteccion, then the stance has to be that private equity to employees should be illegal. Since they cant protect themselves, nor its a risk their portfolio should have. I dont find the narrative that people are too irresponsible on their own money to play the stock game (but yes to the casino or state sponsored lottery) unless they worked for a place where the information asymmetry is formalized. (just because you have the legal capacity to ask for documents doesnt mean you can or will. We all have the capacity to be physically fit but we arent, so asking someone to be fit before they do something else is truly onerous). > Observe the 1930s (or cryptocurrency boom). Accredited investors would go for the former; clueless investors would be sold the latter. The latter would then lose their money and promptly (a) end up on the public balance sheet through our social safety nets or (b) foment a crisis, having taken bets they couldn't afford. Id read some articles about it, but its going to take quite a bit to be persuaded of the opposite with such an example. Remember that right now real companies expose themselves to extreme regulatory risk if they asked an ICO for their own securities: most likely illegal. The reason ICO's are mostly scams is because it is practically illegal to do it with a real company. Who would sell 30% of the company at 10 million when they can sell 2% at 50 million?