3 ms·
I agree. All the annoying animations and hyperbole in the article notwithstanding, it does not seem as malicious as the article tries to portray it. It is rathe
by rajup 5y ago
I agree. All the annoying animations and hyperbole in the article notwithstanding, it does not seem as malicious as the article tries to portray it. It is rather disappointing that there are barriers to some of these investments but I think without these barriers you would open the gates for all sorts of malicious actors taking advantage of unsophisticated investors.
- maerF0x0 5y agoI wonder if there are good VC firms that would let people participate in funds around the $1000 threshold? Like if I could give Garry Tan $1000 to just participate, no questions or interaction required just fill out the forms sign the check, see you in 10yrs... I know part of the issue is that many VCs have a high touch process for the people signing $100k checks, but maybe if they made it more streamlined they could generate more diverse investor base and just say to them "You wont hear from us, no you cant help, see you in 10yrs" kind of mentality.
- jppope 5y agoThey actually are opening up to unaccredited investors, you just need to have a CFP or CPA or something like that (not sure of the actual requirements, I just know that they recently changed them)
- astrange 5y agoThe change is that having one of those certs now makes you an accredited investor. You don't have to be accredited to invest in something like a VC fund anymore using something like Wefunder. However it's extremely risky and generally painful to even find out if the thing you invested in 3 years ago even still exists.