TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

Crowd Investing: Wefunder

174 pointsby ysilverover 13 years ago

17 comments

dclaysmithover 13 years ago
I think the need to stop SOPA and the need to legalize this funding model are apples and oranges. I would love to see some changes to funding laws but many of these laws exist to prevent the defrauding of smaller, less "sophisticated" investors. Simply making the investment legal wouldn't do much without modifying the disclosure requirements the start-up faces. These disclosures will remain very important to prevent scams.<p>So, great idea but not simple. And not a "cause" like fighting SOPA was...
评论 #3529108 未加载
评论 #3529105 未加载
zeratulover 13 years ago
We are getting the news too late. Did you know that there are 7 bills that might change how startups operate?<p><pre><code> H.R.3427 - Startup Technical Assistance for Reemployment Training and Unemployment Prevention Act H.R.3571 - Entrepreneur Startup Growth Act of 2011 S.1965 - Startup Act of 2011 S.1826 - Startup Technical Assistance for Reemployment Training and Unemployment Prevention Act H.R.2941 - Startup Expansion and Investment Act H.R.1114 - StartUp Visa Act of 2011 S.565 - StartUp Visa Act of 2011 </code></pre> We need a web service that is more robust than <a href="http://www.opencongress.org/" rel="nofollow">http://www.opencongress.org/</a> . We need a web service that has proper data mining, visualization, and notification system. The big guys have their lawyers - we need a proper web service. Who can help to build that?
评论 #3529654 未加载
评论 #3529412 未加载
评论 #3529408 未加载
评论 #3529356 未加载
评论 #3529221 未加载
dxbydtover 13 years ago
Democratizing startup investing is a much bigger problem than democratizing very simple speculation, so simple &#38; straightforward a child can figure it out. Look at google. Its trading around $580. Just 2 weeks back it was well over $610. So you say, okay in a month it'll be back above $610. The 1 month otm call on goog is $10 for a 600 strike. You check your pockets. You have $10. You figure, you plonk down $10. Then check back on March 17th. If goog crosses $610 you make the difference. Here I'll even do the math for you: (580,-10),(590,-10)...(599,-10),(600,0),(601,-9),(602,-8),...(610,0),(611,1),(612,2)....(650,40) etc. so that's the list of tuples, one has the google stock price &#38; the other the money you make. So you break even at 610 &#38; after that the sky's the limit. So can you bet $10 ? No. Why not ? Beats me. You can put down $1000 for a 100 bets. But you say, I don't want 100 bets. I just want 1 bet. 1 bet is $10. I have $10. Let me bet. Nope. Sorry. You think this will change anytime soon ? If you can legalize single option trading, you can structure any startup investing on top of that. Many people will lose many $10, but some people will make $10 too, and life will go on.
JumpCrisscrossover 13 years ago
There used to be a time when anyone could sell shares in any company. That didn't work out and so we got the Securities and Exchange Act of 1933. Crowd-funding isn't fatally flawed, but it needs a lot more time to integrate the last 400 years of capital market development history.
评论 #3529138 未加载
评论 #3529209 未加载
robmayover 13 years ago
I have a lot of experience here because a) in 2005 I started something called "The Business Experiment" which was an attempt to have a purely crowd sourced business. (<a href="http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/101/next-essay.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/101/next-essay.html</a>) At the time, I spent a lot of my own money on lawyers trying to figure out how to give equity to people who aren't accredited investors.<p>b)I have since raised $10.5M in venture capital for Backupify.com, so I have also learned that side of the world.<p>From my view, allowing anybody to invest a few hundred or a few thousand dollars in a startup is a bad idea for a few reasons. First of all, the startup world is glamorized by the media. Most startups fail. Most capital is erased. No one writes about those companies, unless the failure is spectacular. Studies have shown that on average, entrepreneurs will do better financially in the "real world" of work than in startups. But the media doesn't play this up, and as a result, society has a bias that is a combination of the survivorship bias and recency bias that makes them think startups are a good investment. Many wealthy people that I have dealt with don't really understand the odds and risks of startups, so all the less likely that your average Joe can do it.<p>Secondly, capital structure matters a lot as your company grows. If you are successful, a bad capital structure can really fuck you over down the road when you need bigger rounds. And some issues require a shareholder vote. Average Joe doesn't know how to deal with these issues, and that scares professional investors. An idea like this will get a lot of companies seed capital, and they won't be able to raise later stage.<p>Third point - startups are really fucking hard, and will strain all of your relationships in your life, including those with your investors. Hell, Backupify is doing pretty well and it's still hard. Having to manage a bunch of small investors can be a nightmare, and going through difficult times with people you barely know, who don't do this professionally, will just make it worse.<p>Here is my prediction about how this legislation plays out. 1. It will eventually pass, because it is sexy and cool and part of the American dream.<p>2. Media will point to examples of companies getting funded that wouldn't normally get VC/Angel funding, to show how great it is. These examples will be thinks like companies outside of major startup hubs, companies that don't put profit/shareholder value / growth first, companies that are highly unusual, weird, or even too risky for VC, and companies that have non-sexy ideas that can't get VC because they aren't mobile/social/sharing/whatever.<p>3. Many will fail, but there will be at least one massive success, and that success will become the poster child for why this works.<p>4. But really, it won't work. People will lose money. There will be lawsuits and complaints. There will be a bubble after point #3 happens, and some 60ish dude will invest too much of his retirement in a dozen startups only to see every one of them fail and his whole net worth wiped out.<p>5. There will be outcry against this, and we will pass laws to regulate it, taking us back to where we began, only in a much worse situation.<p>Now, all that said, I will say there is probably room for a new investment scenario under two conditions.<p>1. The amount is so low it doesn't matter. For example, the bar is $100 and you can't invest in more than 5 at any one time. This makes your returns so small, even with homeruns, to be almost irrelevant, but maybe it's fun and cool and people will like it.<p>2. There is probably room for an "almost accredited investor" clause. I'm a perfect example for this. I'm not quite accredited, but probably will be by this time next year. I understand startups quite well. So maybe a clause saying that if you have worked 2 years in a venture backed startup, you can invest up to $10K, that might be ok.<p>Anyway, those are my thoughts. It will be interesting to see how this will play out.
评论 #3529648 未加载
评论 #3542203 未加载
评论 #3529427 未加载
评论 #3529815 未加载
评论 #3529634 未加载
评论 #3529454 未加载
评论 #3529621 未加载
评论 #3541635 未加载
appswellover 13 years ago
I fully support this! To someone's point, we have an outdated system of balances that are based on 400 year old common law, and put in place as a consequence of the great depressions. S.1791 is a good bill, that puts the proper protections, capping investments at $1k. Not riskless, but appropriate amount of risk for investing. A fairer shake than the individual investor gets in the days of algorithmic, fraud ridden Wall street, or for that matter, the keno tickets the govt is happy to let them purchase.
评论 #3529242 未加载
vsl2over 13 years ago
The key here is the "accredited" investor restriction for funds that invest in anything other than the most vanilla of securities (i.e. stocks and bonds). This is also why most of us cannot invest in hedge funds or private equity funds.<p>In protecting people from themselves, the government is limiting participation in a potentially very lucrative area of investment to only those with money (the rich get richer). I don't believe that everyone is equipped with the financial knowledge to deal with the risk associated with participating in alternative investment funds, but I'd much rather that everyone have the opportunities to take the risks that they choose. Casinos are legal in many areas, strip clubs are legal in even more areas, and shopping malls are everywhere - all of these cause people to take arguably unnecessary risks with their financial health (and some would say even greater than investing). Particularly with the plethora of financial information available on the Internet, the everyday Joe has more resources than ever.<p>I'd love to see Congress eliminate the "accredited investor" requirement for investing in alternative funds so that everyone can have the same access to investing in startups, private companies, etc. I'm sure more than enough funds will spring up to meet investor demand, this being a capitalistic sociey and all.<p>Finally, startups can choose to avoid the problem of many small direct investments by ordinary investors (i.e. too many people to report to). by accepting money only from the investment funds or from few large investors, if such sources are available and willing. If such sources are not available to a startup, then you have to go with the options you have, (e.g. many small direct investors, self-funding, fail), as has always been the case.
padobsonover 13 years ago
I love this because it is effectively disrupting wall street from a legal perspective. You don't need giant public markets anymore when you have the internet, and entrepreneurs that know how to build applications that generate money from lots of people should also be able to raise money from similar people.<p>Although, if we as a an industry are going to focus on something legislatively, I think we should start thinking about going on the offensive in the copyright war. The MPAA and the RIAA are going to regroup and then try to push a similar piece of legislation through. If we go on the offensive now and attempt to pass legislation that will protect user-uploaded content sites and apps like MegaUpload, Dropbox, Box.net, and others, then the web will be a much better place for eveyone building apps like these in the future.
vakselover 13 years ago
I think something like what Goldman Sachs did with Facebook would work.<p>You create a Startup Mutual Fund...where regular folks can sign up and deposit money into.<p>The fund then uses that money to invest into companies. i.e. they'd issue a notice that a week from now they'll be investing into Startup Z and each share would cost $X(actual cost per share + 10% fund operating premium)<p>If the round is limited, the shares would be assigned on first come first serve basis.<p>Essentially a venture capital company but without requiring huge investments to participate.<p>Then also create a marketplace where shares can be sold on the secondary market.<p>Fund's revenue would come from a) fund's fee when purchasing b) fund's fee for secondary sales c) yearly membership fee.<p>And this way you essentially just have the one investor and those who want to invest small investments won't need to get accredited to get into the game.
jchungover 13 years ago
We should all support this. We could unlock millions of dollars of crowd-sourced funding for startups, supporting more innovation, creating more jobs, and driving a healthy democratization of the spirit of investment.<p>As an added benefit, I think it is worth considering that allowing small-scale investments will help to educate a large number of Americans on the basics of investing and financial management. I think we'll all agree that we wouldn't want folks investing their life savings, but $1,000 isn't going to break the bank.
MikeNormanover 13 years ago
This is super important. Everyday Americans should have the right to invest in businesses. Think of the jobs we could create? Government shouldn't be telling me I dont know what Im doing if I want to help a friend start a company that I think can succeed. I get that unsophisticated investors need some protection, but $1000 seems like a reasonable risk to allow folks to take on something they believe in.
dancoleover 13 years ago
This is a great way for Wefunder to attract future funders to their site. Besides the traditional name and email address for a signup list, they're also finding out how much people are willing to fund each year. To add to that, it's also an open list where you can see who and how many people are going in on it. One way to solve the chiken-and-egg problem.
frobbinover 13 years ago
What if you got a 'startup investor license' with the same effort and cost as getting a real estate license? That way only the motivated who prove some basic knowledge can participate. A side industry of investor courses and test study materials would spring up. Even as someone trying to raise funding I would like to educate myself with such a course.
mapleoinover 13 years ago
<i>All Americans—not just the wealthy and well-connected ...</i><p>How about we turn that into:<p><i>All people—not just the wealthy and well-connected Americans ...</i>
billshanderover 13 years ago
Definitely - kickstarter and peer-to-peer lending have proven the greater public can make decisions like this - especially if there are some protections and risk-abatement tactics such as background checks for founders and maximum investment amounts per company.
ck2over 13 years ago
You really want this current congress to set it's eyes on something?<p>You honestly believe that will make something BETTER?<p>They blocked something as basic as consumer protection for over a year and would have kept doing it for years more if they could have.<p>It's an election year, forget it. Try again in 2013 maybe.
lcusackover 13 years ago
This should go without saying - but please don't use the petition to populate Wefunder's mailing list.