The website looks very well put together!<p>In case you guys missed it, the SEC in Title II of the JOBS Act rolled out TODAY. That means startups can now raise funds from accredited investors on Wefunder site itself. This is HUGE but that's not all.<p>Next summer SEC will roll out Title III which means EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN can now invest in startups for as little as $100. This will be a massive boost for all startups everywhere, especially for non-traditional startups that couldn't get funding before. I'm very excited to see all the new startups coming out of this.<p>Great job Wefunder! The website looks amazing!
A quick warning for everyone. Investing without having a complete access to the books of the company you invest in is extremely stupid. No serious investor would do that. Don't be stupid.<p>You must make sure the valuation is fair, this means - check the valuation report, check the reputation of the company who did the valuation report, sanity check it, look for signs of bullshit.<p>Keep in mind, even if the founders have solid reputation there may be some unethical MBA behind the scenes who can act without founders understanding exactly what he is doing.
I'm curious - does anyone know if someone who doesn't qualify to be an accredited investor can use power of attorney for someone who does qualify to be an accredited investor to make 50/50 investments?
The ASCII art in the javascript console is a very nice touch: <a href="http://cl.ly/image/3B1d1k1H1902" rel="nofollow">http://cl.ly/image/3B1d1k1H1902</a>
I don't think I'd invest in a privately owned company unless they opened their books up to me in a completely transparent manner (I'd expect the same information that I'd have access to when buying stock in a company traded on a stock exchange). My guess is that this level of information will not be provided, which means that any "investment" in a company like this would be more like betting at a casino.
1. Why does this website feel slimy?
2. Maybe, I just I got used to the status quo?
3. I do think this website is a disaster waiting
to happen? I hope not, but I see nothing but lawsuits
down the line.
4. Taking money from people who understand the risks
involved in start ups is fine, but taking the money
from the average dude who was inspired by Steve Job's
movie is Wrong.
5. To anyone who's rushing over to this site expecting
to make money one your investment; Guy's like Steve Jobs
and Mark Zuckerburg had a lot of luck on their sides too.
Mark would have probably never started Facebook, without
stealing the idea from the rich twins. And the god Steve;
he got fired from his own company.
6. I wish start ups well, but be honest. Or, at least
take money from the people who can afford to lose it.
It's not cool to lose money from the middle class and poor.
There might not be a God, but personal integrity is the
one thing that money can't buy.
I noticed a number of startups are listed (and publicly raising) both on wefunder and angellist. How does it work if they raise >50% on each platform?<p>Also showing the % raised the way it is now is a bit misleading, it gives off the impression that that was the amount that went through the wefunder.<p>Try maybe different colours so we can see easily what has been raised via the platform.
So, I put the money, they tell me that:<p>1. I am gambling<p>2. They decide when to cash in. Usually it takes up to 10 years...<p>3. I would be a "bother" for the founders (true, but no nicer way of saying this?)<p>To me, and I am happy to waste HN points on this comment, this feels snarky and offending. They seem to say "we are the cool guys", come join us, maybe you ll be cool too, just gives us the money.
I received a promo email from WeFunder this morning. To mark the occasion of the change in the law, this was the messaging:<p><i>To celebrate, we are featuring great 25 startups from Y Combinator, Techstars, and MIT!</i><p>Clicking through to the "Raise Funding" page, which includes the pricing, this message appears at the bottom:<p><i>We offer a 100% discount to select high-tech startups that recieved funding from Y Combinator, SV Angel, or Andreessen Horowitz.</i><p>Not to dump on the accomplishments of the featured startups and those who have received funding from SV Angel or Andreessen Horowitz, but the message to everyone else seems to be: It doesn't matter how great your team is or how well you execute, if you are not part of the incubator/angel A-list, don't expect any breaks from us when it comes to promotions or pricing.
It still doesn't really strike me as crowd-funding so much when the minimum investment is still $1000. Is that some legal limitation in the US?<p>In the UK we can do equity-crowd investments as small as £10 - as I did when I raised money on Seedrs: <a href="http://www.seedrs.com/startups/satago?promo_code=V5EKZUV4" rel="nofollow">http://www.seedrs.com/startups/satago?promo_code=V5EKZUV4</a><p>Disclosure: That is a referral link - Seedrs give me 5% to invest myself if anyone invests an amount through that link, which I think is astonishing in itself and worthy of comment.
What is the reasoning behind limiting non-accredited investing anyway? Why is it a crime for me to give somebody else money if I am happy with the terms of the contract?
I love this idea. I think this is a fantastic opportunity for us plebs to start speculating.<p>It would be very nice to see if the crowd has a different kind of investment trend from the accredited investors.<p>Edit: Mostly, I'm curious if there will be enough numbers to see a "wisdom of the crowd" effect or if it will actually just amplify whatever the big money tends to be attracted to.
Website looks great. I'm sure the crowdfunding niche will explode even more in the next couple of years.<p>That said, does anyone else think this will just feed into existing/new bubble?<p>Title III in particularly will bring in a flood of dumb money. What a beacon for #startupbros everywhere.