If persons would be willing to directly let money be thrown at them in exchange for "a share of their income" they should be free to do so
Not being able to do so is closer to slavery than the idea of doing so itself
Post by twetch#22429
legal entities are a social construct after all
with benefits of course, and good reasons to have them
does not mean we have to stick to it though, there are cases where it would make much more sense for me to directly invest in persons if they agree
What the chain says
- Block
- 635 277
- Time
- 2020-05-17T07:12:33Z
- 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 (17)
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.
Right, I have no answers for that in detail - that is why I asked the question and said "Show me the future"
Let's wait for @255 he seems to have something planned. There has to be a way to do this via Bitcoin, the rest is negotiation and risk management
Theranos comes to kind. This creates a system where Psychopathic manipulation yields investment and then there could be no recourse for lack of results so the psychopath would just move on with the investment money. How do you sell your investment?
I say it again: it is based on free negotiation, so it does not even create a system as a system is set by rules
If something is freely negotiable, it is not set by rules
Better to discuss these things via vid chat, but I'll wait for @255 solution first
You are afraid someone takes the investment and does nothing?
Bad luck for the investor then - if you invest in persons, you take the risk of them being psychopaths or thieves.
Its a higher risk investment for sure.
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?
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!
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.