Open to the possibility of improvement on the current situation. Quite sure that I personally would never accept such an offer of investment. What happens when the living person you own a revenue share in stops working? Or waived a salary? This sounds bad.
Post by twetch#22429
Question, Deggen, just brainstorming/example:
Someone gives you 50k in exchange for a 1% of your personal (!) yearly income for 5 years (just an example!)
You have no risk, he has it, but you have more money to scale/accelerate your work/ideas
Why not?
What the chain says
- Block
- 635 282
- Time
- 2020-05-17T07:27:51Z
- Signer
- 1P3nuztTbn1WV7WzfW16gAbMS3vEH3qhdV
- App
- twetch
- Type
- post
- Content type
- text/plain
- Name in tx
- twetch#22429
Fields the transaction did not carry are omitted. Open the payload to see the bytes as stored.
Signed by
1P3nuztTbn1WV7WzfW16gAbMS3vEH3qhdV VerifiedReplies (11)
gets^* This creates an incentive to sell oneself as the best entrepreneur, rather than create genuinely wealth creating businesses and ideas. Okay - I’m done pretending to know what I’m talking about. Perhaps I should stfu and build.
Thanks for the input, I appreciate it. I just raised a question + asked for a solution.
You go and build more - give people a chance to throw money at you, directly or via company. If you dont need extra money to scale your business, then god bless you!
Thanks for raising the question. I love talking about stuff I barely understand. Makes me realise how little I know.
Maybe I’m wrong. To me it seems like ICOs. It’s not obviously bad, as people can make their own choices. However, in hindsight it allowed lots of people to scam uninformed investors out of what little they had to invest. One geta more of what one pays for
Firstly, because I don’t think anyone would take home a Million via income given the tax %. ( The break even point ) Secondly, because I value the signal that earning gives me. Taking money destroys that signal, psychologically. Thirdly, —
— because if many people do this, then we have misallocated capital. People have fiduciary responsibilities in the corp model. They have limited liability. Remove that and creative people will not risk trying ideas because they must fear the lynch mob.
A lot would go wrong.
Sure, but nobody is forced to take the risk. I just want the opportunity, if I get scammed eventually, it is my problem.
If you accept that cognitive ability is a Pareto distribution, then you ought to advocate for the reasonable protection of the less able minded investor from the psychopathic malfeasant. This helps the society avoid the opportunity cost of bad investments.
^ Okay I really need to STFU now. I’m confusing distributions. Normal vs Pareto.
But because it wouldn’t work out for most, the investment format would fail and then you’ll end up with lemons only again.