Grassroots Securities Deregulation

Discuss

6 Responses to “Grassroots Securities Deregulation”

  1. Mac says:

    I like the idea of keeping the individual investment value low until the bugs in the code/legislation are sorted out.

    The problem with upping the individual amount to $1,000 and a cap of $2 million is that it will encourage a lot of scams that aren’t real projects – but use the ‘crowdfunding’ legislation as a way of keeping it legal and end up sullying the name of crowdfunding forever.

    Otherwise people go door to door in poor neighbourhoods – ‘selling’ fabulous investment opportunities for a mere $1,000 … with payment schemes and arrangements to garnish the investor’s wages directly if they can’t pay up now.

    When the entire scheme falls apart it would be impossible to prosecute – because the door-to-door investment wranglers did absolutely nothing wrong … they just offered a crowdsourcing investment scheme to people.

    I’m a big fan of simplified rules to assist innovation – but the exemption will get abused if there is zero oversight. In this age of technology it doesn’t seem unreasonable that every crowdsourcing venture shouldn’t be registered – a simple webform would get a registration for the scheme with a nominal fee (under $100) and the details put online for all to see.

    It could also require a mandatory followup – just a ‘fill in the blanks’ progress report – including complaints monitoring like the BBB does. That way we could track automatically and have real information to base decisions on – such as a decision to increase the amounts later on.

    If the webform didn’t require a fee then it will automatically be filled with spam – there would be a million submissions every day – each one causally mentioning the benefit of Viagra…

    It would be a workable compromise.

    Mac

  2. Gregory Bloom says:

    This is an excellent idea. Any time you can lubricate the process of starting new ventures it pays off in amazing ways.

    This process really needs to have a cap more like $2 million, though. $100K isn’t enough to do anything, really. And if the individual cap were $1000, it still wouldn’t present undue risk for the investor. I mean, the cost of unexpected car repairs or a trip to the emergency room can cost that much, and it doesn’t ruin most folks.

  3. Anonymous says:

    I think the $100.00 cap too low. Revenue is required for many of the job creation projects I have thought of. We should be able to raise millions. There can always be transparency with a Board made up of solid citizens to assure no misuse of funds. A project set up for “real people” could be monitored and verified.

    The idea that fraud exists and can’t be found is un-supportable. If you look, and fraud does exist, it can be found.

  4. Anonymous says:

    what’s to stop a donor from making 1000 $100 donations?

  5. stcorbett says:

    Nice Work Paul! We are rooting for you at ScaleWell.

Leave a Reply