3 ms·

There are other (partly regulatory, partly logistical) reasons that companies don't like having extremely large cap sheets. At this scale if it's easy to raise

There are other (partly regulatory, partly logistical) reasons that companies don't like having extremely large cap sheets. At this scale if it's easy to raise $2B from 2-3 institutional investors you probably don't want to take money from 50,000 small investors.

newZWhoDis 4y ago
- arcticbull 4y ago
  We did actually try this, and it was a contributing factor to the Great Depression. Because (a) you don't know Elon (b) you provide no value to them (c) at this stage they're not taking $10K checks from private investors because it would cost more to keep it on the cap table than it would benefit them and ... Theres massive adverse selection bias. Good companies get significantly more value from raising a few small checks than they do from a ton of tiny ones from people without experience doing so or specific skills/connections. So the ones that can, will, and the bad companies that can't will come for the small time chumps. This played out in the early 1900s, and no, nothing's really changed. Besides if Elon really wanted your $10K they could have raised via Reg CF (JOBS act 2012). However, they're actively choosing not to. And I keep using $10K as the number because honestly if you're writing a $100K check you're probably an accredited investor.
  - newZWhoDis 4y ago
    I can reply again The government that exists solely because I work and pay taxes has no ethical basis for telling me how I can invest my money. To suggest otherwise is to let the mask slip and admit they are not working in my (or your) interest. The part you’re missing is if elon rejected my $100k 3+ years ago then OK, fine. That would suck for me, but that’s his choice etc. I can bitch to him. Instead I have a maternal nanny state that employs exclusively 70IQ morons telling me what I can and can’t do with the money they don’t steal from me. There is no Jack Bauer running the show, it’s your kindergarten teacher with NSA powers. Explain to me, in detail, why I would continue to work for a system like that? Why would I not try to leave such a system as soon as I am able?
    - arcticbull 4y ago
      > The part you’re missing is if elon rejected my $100k 3+ years ago then OK, fine. That would suck for me, but that’s his choice etc. I can bitch to him. He did, because he didn't run a CF campaign. Savvy? Good companies that want your money have avenues, and yeah it may take a bit of extra paperwork but that's just fine. Look at Replit raising via WeFunder.
- bpodgursky 4y ago
  I don't actually disagree with you, I don't like the limits on individual investment. It's a weird mashup of paternalism and protectionism by large banks that want to capture startup value. But in practice I do not believe that even in a highly deregulated investment environment SpaceX would open itself up to retail investment right now.

newZWhoDis 4y ago

arcticbull 4y ago
We did actually try this, and it was a contributing factor to the Great Depression. Because (a) you don't know Elon (b) you provide no value to them (c) at this stage they're not taking $10K checks from private investors because it would cost more to keep it on the cap table than it would benefit them and ... Theres massive adverse selection bias. Good companies get significantly more value from raising a few small checks than they do from a ton of tiny ones from people without experience doing so or specific skills/connections. So the ones that can, will, and the bad companies that can't will come for the small time chumps. This played out in the early 1900s, and no, nothing's really changed. Besides if Elon really wanted your $10K they could have raised via Reg CF (JOBS act 2012). However, they're actively choosing not to. And I keep using $10K as the number because honestly if you're writing a $100K check you're probably an accredited investor.
- newZWhoDis 4y ago
  I can reply again The government that exists solely because I work and pay taxes has no ethical basis for telling me how I can invest my money. To suggest otherwise is to let the mask slip and admit they are not working in my (or your) interest. The part you’re missing is if elon rejected my $100k 3+ years ago then OK, fine. That would suck for me, but that’s his choice etc. I can bitch to him. Instead I have a maternal nanny state that employs exclusively 70IQ morons telling me what I can and can’t do with the money they don’t steal from me. There is no Jack Bauer running the show, it’s your kindergarten teacher with NSA powers. Explain to me, in detail, why I would continue to work for a system like that? Why would I not try to leave such a system as soon as I am able?
  - arcticbull 4y ago
    > The part you’re missing is if elon rejected my $100k 3+ years ago then OK, fine. That would suck for me, but that’s his choice etc. I can bitch to him. He did, because he didn't run a CF campaign. Savvy? Good companies that want your money have avenues, and yeah it may take a bit of extra paperwork but that's just fine. Look at Replit raising via WeFunder.
bpodgursky 4y ago
I don't actually disagree with you, I don't like the limits on individual investment. It's a weird mashup of paternalism and protectionism by large banks that want to capture startup value. But in practice I do not believe that even in a highly deregulated investment environment SpaceX would open itself up to retail investment right now.