4 ms·

I think you have more of a problem with me than any of the VCs I talked to. Besides, I'm the only one suing the government over this issue, so the hypothetical

I think you have more of a problem with me than any of the VCs I talked to. Besides, I'm the only one suing the government over this issue, so the hypothetical case you reference wouldn't even be correct.

badclient 15y ago
Willingness to sue the gov doesn't say much about your ability to take on a challenge. In fact, your inclination to litigate may well have scared VCs who'd rather you get traction with your product even if it means operating in a gray area and litigate when forced. I'm sure if payPal tried to meet every rule and take on what they deemed as unfair laws in their early days they'd never be able to focus much on their product.
- thinkcomp 15y ago
  I didn't even think about suing California until months after meetings with VCs, so your implications are false. PayPal had to scramble at the last minute to deal with licensing issues right before its IPO, because it had ignored them up until then. This is well-documented. I have no idea who you are. I do know that you are critical of my abiding by the law, and critical of my challenging it. You don't think that building an incredibly complex technology from scratch and suing a government demonstrates an "ability to take on a challenge." (Which leads me to ask, what does?) I guess you can't please everyone.
  - badclient 15y ago
    Which leads me to ask, what does? You answered your own question: PayPal had to scramble at the last minute to deal with licensing issues right before its IPO, because it had ignored them up until then. This is well-documented.
    - thinkcomp 15y ago
      I see: in your opinion, unless I'm willing to risk incarceration--a risk PayPal never faced because the USA PATRIOT Act had not yet been passed--I'm not willing to take on "the challenge." You have a strange view of the world, my anonymous friend.
      - badclient 15y ago
        So you weren't able to raise money because the VCs were scared you'd be incarcerated?
        thinkcomp 15y ago
        No, the VCs were scared that they wouldn't earn a high return on investment with most of the money going to license fees, application fees, and surety bond premiums; and that in the alternative, they might be at risk of going to jail themselves. See 18 U.S.C 1960(a): "(a) Whoever knowingly conducts, controls, manages, supervises, directs, or owns all or part of an unlicensed money transmitting business, shall be fined in accordance with this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both."
        badclient 15y ago
        So how are your competitors, who you claim are breaking the law, able to raise money?
        thinkcomp 15y ago
        You'd have to ask them.
        badclient 15y ago
        Most of the VCs I talked to about FaceCash refused to invest because they were afraid of the regulatory implications. Given you have competitors that have raised money, this leaves two possibilities: 1. You were talking to the wrong VCs 2. You got rejected by the VCs for reasons other than the mere existence of the regulatory challenge(for example, they may have rejected you because they believed the regulatory challenges were surmountable but that you did not possess the skills etc. to deal with them in the manner that they'd like) In either case, your attributing your failure to fundraise to the regulatory implications seems dishonest and/or misguided.

badclient 15y ago

Willingness to sue the gov doesn't say much about your ability to take on a challenge. In fact, your inclination to litigate may well have scared VCs who'd rather you get traction with your product even if it means operating in a gray area and litigate when forced. I'm sure if payPal tried to meet every rule and take on what they deemed as unfair laws in their early days they'd never be able to focus much on their product.

thinkcomp 15y ago
I didn't even think about suing California until months after meetings with VCs, so your implications are false. PayPal had to scramble at the last minute to deal with licensing issues right before its IPO, because it had ignored them up until then. This is well-documented. I have no idea who you are. I do know that you are critical of my abiding by the law, and critical of my challenging it. You don't think that building an incredibly complex technology from scratch and suing a government demonstrates an "ability to take on a challenge." (Which leads me to ask, what does?) I guess you can't please everyone.
- badclient 15y ago
  Which leads me to ask, what does? You answered your own question: PayPal had to scramble at the last minute to deal with licensing issues right before its IPO, because it had ignored them up until then. This is well-documented.
  - thinkcomp 15y ago
    I see: in your opinion, unless I'm willing to risk incarceration--a risk PayPal never faced because the USA PATRIOT Act had not yet been passed--I'm not willing to take on "the challenge." You have a strange view of the world, my anonymous friend.
    - badclient 15y ago
      So you weren't able to raise money because the VCs were scared you'd be incarcerated?
      - thinkcomp 15y ago
        No, the VCs were scared that they wouldn't earn a high return on investment with most of the money going to license fees, application fees, and surety bond premiums; and that in the alternative, they might be at risk of going to jail themselves. See 18 U.S.C 1960(a): "(a) Whoever knowingly conducts, controls, manages, supervises, directs, or owns all or part of an unlicensed money transmitting business, shall be fined in accordance with this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both."
        badclient 15y ago
        So how are your competitors, who you claim are breaking the law, able to raise money?
        thinkcomp 15y ago
        You'd have to ask them.
        badclient 15y ago
        Most of the VCs I talked to about FaceCash refused to invest because they were afraid of the regulatory implications. Given you have competitors that have raised money, this leaves two possibilities: 1. You were talking to the wrong VCs 2. You got rejected by the VCs for reasons other than the mere existence of the regulatory challenge(for example, they may have rejected you because they believed the regulatory challenges were surmountable but that you did not possess the skills etc. to deal with them in the manner that they'd like) In either case, your attributing your failure to fundraise to the regulatory implications seems dishonest and/or misguided.