3 ms·
>The result was a “capped-profit” structure that would limit the return of investment at 100-fold the original sum. If you invested $10 million, at most you’d g
by peripitea 5y ago
>The result was a “capped-profit” structure that would limit the return of investment at 100-fold the original sum. If you invested $10 million, at most you’d get $1 billion. Not exactly what I’d call capped.
What on earth would you call it then?
- OnlineGladiator 5y agoPR to make it seem like they're a non-profit while still making 100x returns legally possible. 100x returns are about as good as you can possibly get (and much, much, much better than normal or even great) so they're pretending to act like a non-profit while still being very much for-profit. They're unnecessarily complicating their legal structure just for some publicity brownie points, and they aren't really changing anything substantial. It's also an attempt to make it seem like "you're only going to make as much as 100x on this supremely lucrative investment opportunity!" to dupe the gullible as the market is frothy and the hype is extraordinary. Better yet, I'd call it unnecessary bullshit.
- peripitea 5y agoInteresting. You are far more cynical about this than I am. I can't say I know their motivations, but it seems at least plausible that they could land on this structure for earnest reasons if they both: a) believe they need more money than could be raised as a traditional non-profit, but b) want to limit the power of investors in the case where they successfully develop a strong AI.