4 ms·
I agree with most of what you're saying, but I don't know what your preferred alternative would be. What should've happened instead?
by natrius 14y ago
I agree with most of what you're saying, but I don't know what your preferred alternative would be. What should've happened instead?
- neurotech1 14y agoTheoretically, two other possibilities; 1) They act a certain way, and be prepared to defend civilly and criminally if necessary. That said even if what AngelList and FundersClub do is technically illegal, the fact they target accredited investors and don't promise insane returns, probably would tip the balance towards a civil action. IANAL and we're talking hypothetical action anyway. 2) Another possibility would be to obtain a declarative judgement that what they are doing is in fact legal. IANAL but this would be messy, expensive and a lengthy process.
- temphn 14y agoSimple: the business should be able to deal with willing buyers and sellers. The SEC shouldn't exist. Pure caveat emptor, buyer beware. If you trust the SEC to "protect you" on your behalf you will (someday soon) find yourself Cyprused with no recourse. Cyprus has its equivalent of the SEC, and did absolutely nothing to prevent the complete collapse of the economy. The US became a world power before the alphabet soup of agencies that arose once the frontier closed. Regulation and bureaucracy can best be conceptualized as middle management that arises after a startup's early stages, parasites that a relatively strong organism/organization like the US can tolerate - but not indefinitely. The SEC's primary interest is increasing the SEC's budget and power, it has absolutely nothing to do with safeguarding your interests.