5 ms·

FWIW you lost our given inflation. Technically, he could have invested all the funds, grown it by 20% per year in the SPY and returned you still a $100 watch fo

FWIW you lost our given inflation. Technically, he could have invested all the funds, grown it by 20% per year in the SPY and returned you still a $100 watch for your $100, pocketing the difference How is this legal?

bmacho 3y ago
It should be legal for 2 parties to do some risky business together if they trust each other, and are both aware of the risks. It is hard to distinguish it from frauds (e.g. what Holmes and Theranos committed) nevertheless it should be legal.
- selcuka 3y ago
  > It is hard to distinguish it from frauds (e.g. what Holmes and Theranos committed) nevertheless it should be legal. I believe there is a difference between promising something that you know can't be done, and promising something that can be done, but failing to do it within time/budget.
  - Someone 3y ago
    There is, and it’s easy to discriminate between the obviously possible and the obvious frauds, but there is a gray area where that’s hard. Even promising something that can’t be done need not be fraud because the developer can have reasonable arguments that it can’t be done yet. Even if the developer has doubts as to whether they will be able to do it, or even whether it actually is possible, it’s not fraud if they clearly outline the risks.
    - selcuka 3y ago
      > Even promising something that can’t be done need not be fraud because the developer can have reasonable arguments that it can’t be done yet. True, but that wasn't the case with Theranos. Every domain expert knew that you couldn't possibly analyse everything using a drop of blood, because blood is not homogeneous, so one drop from your left arm is not necessarily the same as another drop from your right arm. This is a fundamental limitation of human anatomy, not something to do with the current state of technology.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  The difference lies in the original intent, which is super hard to figure out even after the fact.
- rmbyrro 3y ago
  Theranos was a terrible comparison
jacquesm 3y ago
A kickstarter is not a store. You could well lose your money.
- wkat4242 3y ago
  It's not an obligation-free playground for tinkerers either though.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    That is more or less exactly what it is, if you tell yourself you have rights after backing a Kickstarter then you are doing it wrong. That's why you are called a backer and not a buyer. It's interesting that someone would back a thing without actually knowing what kind of relationship they are entering in. https://www.kickstarter.com/blog/kickstarter-is-not-a-store https://www.kickstarter.com/blog/kickstarter-is-not-a-store https://www.kickstarter.com/rules?ref=global-footer https://www.kickstarter.com/rules?ref=global-footer So, within the rules: it is 'an obligation-free playground for tinkerers' more than it is a place where you can buy cool stuff that doesn't exist yet. And in this particular case it worked exactly as it should. Obviously there are some Kickstarters that are fraudulent, where the initiator has no intention up front to ever release what they say they intend to build. But those are indistinguishable from your typical other failed Kickstarter, the one where the ability or funds did not reach far enough to stretch to the point where something tangible got delivered. If you want to be 100% sure you get what you back: don't use Kickstarter, you will almost certainly be disappointed. If you want to back people that have the intention of doing interesting things with low expectations of actually receiving that which you back Kickstarter is fine. A very strict reading of the rules means that Kickstarter can be exactly that: an obligation-free playground for tinkerers, who may at some point deliver something back to you in return for the money you give them. Your 'backing' is essentially a donation, there is a pinky promise that the recipient will try to do what they can to deliver on their intentions. Some projects are more up-front about this than others, but in general it helps to understand the kind of arrangement you are entering into before deciding to back any kind of project. This is the project page for this watch: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/920064946/oscilloscope-watch?ref=nav_search&result=project&term=oscilloscope%20watch https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/920064946/oscilloscope-... The timetable seems - to the hardware oriented part of my brain - wildly optimistic. Otoh 10 years is probably much longer than the original project was intended to run, likely there were serious troubles sourcing parts and/or with the final design. But the person behind the project felt that in spite of that headwind they still were obliged to deliver, even if that happened much, much later than intended. I wished all Kickstarters would end as happy as this one. https://help.kickstarter.com/hc/en-us/articles/115005048113-How-do-backers-know-if-a-project-will-follow-through- https://help.kickstarter.com/hc/en-us/articles/115005048113-... So: other than a 'gentle-mans agreement' you do not have much to go on in terms of rights. Finally: the amount of money raised for this project is so low that I'm surprised it managed to run to completion at all.
arcticbull 3y ago
You don't really know if you'd lose on an inflation adjusted basis unless we knew what they'd charge for the same (or a similar, if there is such a thing) device today vs back then. If it was $100 in 2014 and $100 today, sure. If it was $100 in 2014 and today they'd sell it for $1000 then no, you'd have beaten inflation.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  It's a small high tech item, so it's very unlikely the overall build cost would match inflation let alone exceed it.
  - mitthrowaway2 3y ago
    Maybe; the cost of semiconductors went up quite a bit recently.
Thorrez 3y ago
>grown it by 20% per year in the SPY SPY grew 12.197% annually (including dividend reinvestment) from October 2013 to August 2023. https://dqydj.com/sp-500-return-calculator/ https://dqydj.com/sp-500-return-calculator/ >and returned you still a $100 watch for your $100 $100 in 2013 is not the same as $100 in 2023 due to inflation. Adjusting for inflation, the SPY annual return from the same time period (with dividend reinvestment) is 9.216%.
meroes 3y ago
It’s illegal to not maximize your capital now?
ryanjshaw 3y ago
I backed Oculus and I still joke about waiting for my cut of that sweet Facebook money. But I know that wasn't part of the deal I entered into and wouldn't want the courts to intervene.
jomohke 3y ago
I would bet money that the creator didn't make anywhere near minimum wage, if anything, from this. Add up the time of designing and getting this project done over ten years. It's also a niche, specialist hardware project made in extremely small quantities. They probably should have charged more, not less.
- dgoldstein0 3y ago
  And if they charged more, would they have gotten as many backers? Significantly fewer? You are probably right it was a raw deal for them, but likely there just isn't enough demand for a price point that would make this sort of project a good investment.
- ilyt 3y ago
  Well, nothing stops him from continuing to make and sell it. But I'd imagine author doesn't want to do anything with bulk manufacturing ever again. Also it wasn't from scratch but evolution of https://www.gabotronics.com/products/57/xmega-xprotolab-details.html https://www.gabotronics.com/products/57/xmega-xprotolab-deta... author already made 2 kickstarters before https://www.kickstarter.com/profile/920064946/created https://www.kickstarter.com/profile/920064946/created
Cthulhu_ 3y ago
With that argument, why buy anything ever when you could put it in the stock market?
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  That's what the stock market is about these days anyway, isn't it? Why invest in something useful, when you can just flip shares?

bmacho 3y ago

It should be legal for 2 parties to do some risky business together if they trust each other, and are both aware of the risks. It is hard to distinguish it from frauds (e.g. what Holmes and Theranos committed) nevertheless it should be legal.

selcuka 3y ago
> It is hard to distinguish it from frauds (e.g. what Holmes and Theranos committed) nevertheless it should be legal. I believe there is a difference between promising something that you know can't be done, and promising something that can be done, but failing to do it within time/budget.
- Someone 3y ago
  There is, and it’s easy to discriminate between the obviously possible and the obvious frauds, but there is a gray area where that’s hard. Even promising something that can’t be done need not be fraud because the developer can have reasonable arguments that it can’t be done yet. Even if the developer has doubts as to whether they will be able to do it, or even whether it actually is possible, it’s not fraud if they clearly outline the risks.
  - selcuka 3y ago
    > Even promising something that can’t be done need not be fraud because the developer can have reasonable arguments that it can’t be done yet. True, but that wasn't the case with Theranos. Every domain expert knew that you couldn't possibly analyse everything using a drop of blood, because blood is not homogeneous, so one drop from your left arm is not necessarily the same as another drop from your right arm. This is a fundamental limitation of human anatomy, not something to do with the current state of technology.
jacquesm 3y ago
The difference lies in the original intent, which is super hard to figure out even after the fact.
rmbyrro 3y ago
Theranos was a terrible comparison

jacquesm 3y ago

A kickstarter is not a store. You could well lose your money.

wkat4242 3y ago
It's not an obligation-free playground for tinkerers either though.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  That is more or less exactly what it is, if you tell yourself you have rights after backing a Kickstarter then you are doing it wrong. That's why you are called a backer and not a buyer. It's interesting that someone would back a thing without actually knowing what kind of relationship they are entering in. https://www.kickstarter.com/blog/kickstarter-is-not-a-store https://www.kickstarter.com/blog/kickstarter-is-not-a-store https://www.kickstarter.com/rules?ref=global-footer https://www.kickstarter.com/rules?ref=global-footer So, within the rules: it is 'an obligation-free playground for tinkerers' more than it is a place where you can buy cool stuff that doesn't exist yet. And in this particular case it worked exactly as it should. Obviously there are some Kickstarters that are fraudulent, where the initiator has no intention up front to ever release what they say they intend to build. But those are indistinguishable from your typical other failed Kickstarter, the one where the ability or funds did not reach far enough to stretch to the point where something tangible got delivered. If you want to be 100% sure you get what you back: don't use Kickstarter, you will almost certainly be disappointed. If you want to back people that have the intention of doing interesting things with low expectations of actually receiving that which you back Kickstarter is fine. A very strict reading of the rules means that Kickstarter can be exactly that: an obligation-free playground for tinkerers, who may at some point deliver something back to you in return for the money you give them. Your 'backing' is essentially a donation, there is a pinky promise that the recipient will try to do what they can to deliver on their intentions. Some projects are more up-front about this than others, but in general it helps to understand the kind of arrangement you are entering into before deciding to back any kind of project. This is the project page for this watch: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/920064946/oscilloscope-watch?ref=nav_search&result=project&term=oscilloscope%20watch https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/920064946/oscilloscope-... The timetable seems - to the hardware oriented part of my brain - wildly optimistic. Otoh 10 years is probably much longer than the original project was intended to run, likely there were serious troubles sourcing parts and/or with the final design. But the person behind the project felt that in spite of that headwind they still were obliged to deliver, even if that happened much, much later than intended. I wished all Kickstarters would end as happy as this one. https://help.kickstarter.com/hc/en-us/articles/115005048113-How-do-backers-know-if-a-project-will-follow-through- https://help.kickstarter.com/hc/en-us/articles/115005048113-... So: other than a 'gentle-mans agreement' you do not have much to go on in terms of rights. Finally: the amount of money raised for this project is so low that I'm surprised it managed to run to completion at all.

arcticbull 3y ago

You don't really know if you'd lose on an inflation adjusted basis unless we knew what they'd charge for the same (or a similar, if there is such a thing) device today vs back then. If it was $100 in 2014 and $100 today, sure. If it was $100 in 2014 and today they'd sell it for $1000 then no, you'd have beaten inflation.

Dylan16807 3y ago
It's a small high tech item, so it's very unlikely the overall build cost would match inflation let alone exceed it.
- mitthrowaway2 3y ago
  Maybe; the cost of semiconductors went up quite a bit recently.

Thorrez 3y ago

>grown it by 20% per year in the SPY SPY grew 12.197% annually (including dividend reinvestment) from October 2013 to August 2023. https://dqydj.com/sp-500-return-calculator/ https://dqydj.com/sp-500-return-calculator/ >and returned you still a $100 watch for your $100 $100 in 2013 is not the same as $100 in 2023 due to inflation. Adjusting for inflation, the SPY annual return from the same time period (with dividend reinvestment) is 9.216%.

meroes 3y ago

It’s illegal to not maximize your capital now?

ryanjshaw 3y ago

I backed Oculus and I still joke about waiting for my cut of that sweet Facebook money. But I know that wasn't part of the deal I entered into and wouldn't want the courts to intervene.

jomohke 3y ago

I would bet money that the creator didn't make anywhere near minimum wage, if anything, from this. Add up the time of designing and getting this project done over ten years. It's also a niche, specialist hardware project made in extremely small quantities. They probably should have charged more, not less.

dgoldstein0 3y ago
And if they charged more, would they have gotten as many backers? Significantly fewer? You are probably right it was a raw deal for them, but likely there just isn't enough demand for a price point that would make this sort of project a good investment.
ilyt 3y ago
Well, nothing stops him from continuing to make and sell it. But I'd imagine author doesn't want to do anything with bulk manufacturing ever again. Also it wasn't from scratch but evolution of https://www.gabotronics.com/products/57/xmega-xprotolab-details.html https://www.gabotronics.com/products/57/xmega-xprotolab-deta... author already made 2 kickstarters before https://www.kickstarter.com/profile/920064946/created https://www.kickstarter.com/profile/920064946/created

Cthulhu_ 3y ago

With that argument, why buy anything ever when you could put it in the stock market?

TeMPOraL 3y ago
That's what the stock market is about these days anyway, isn't it? Why invest in something useful, when you can just flip shares?