Comments on: Twitter: A micro-financing vehicle? http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/08/20/twitter-a-micro-financing-vehicle/ ... at the intersection of media, technology, business and the web Mon, 22 Mar 2010 18:22:10 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9 hourly 1 By: Crowd Sourcing Log » Money of the Crowds: Crowdsourced Funding http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/08/20/twitter-a-micro-financing-vehicle/comment-page-1/#comment-344711 Crowd Sourcing Log » Money of the Crowds: Crowdsourced Funding Sun, 21 Dec 2008 06:36:43 +0000 http://www.mathewingram.com/work/?p=2610#comment-344711 [...] Posted by Vinson in News, ... | 12.21.2008 - 3:36 pm In light of a mini-controversy set in the month of August when the founder of a web startup apparently violated SEC laws when he sent out a Twitter message looking for investors, The Globe and Mail’s Matthew Ingram wonders why can’t we raise money from the crowd for startups? [...] [...] Posted by Vinson in News, … | 12.21.2008 – 3:36 pm In light of a mini-controversy set in the month of August when the founder of a web startup apparently violated SEC laws when he sent out a Twitter message looking for investors, The Globe and Mail’s Matthew Ingram wonders why can’t we raise money from the crowd for startups? [...]

]]> By: IMFM2 http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/08/20/twitter-a-micro-financing-vehicle/comment-page-1/#comment-374305 IMFM2 Sun, 19 Oct 2008 08:44:00 +0000 http://www.mathewingram.com/work/?p=2610#comment-374305 The system and the GOV is there to protect the special interest, not individuals as the GOV and the SEC and FINRA have claimed.<br><br>If Jason is allow to do what he proposed to do, all the institutions, VC, IB would be out of business. Also, there would be no need for the GOV grant system too because it takes the GOV FOREVER to hand out grants to business in need. Plus, business financing is not mean for everyone or all the banks would be out of business too.<br><br>I agreed that SEC and FINRA should make such changes and allow non-accredited investors to decide for ourselves on "micro investments" without all the GOV scrutiny and red tapes.<br><br>Of course, there are ways to go around the SEC because Jason's post on twitter only violated two areas.<br><br>1) advertise in public<br><br>2) Without qualifying investors<br><br>Thus, Jason can very well host an online seminar without accepting investment money and to build "existing relationship with potential investors, FIRST. By doing so. Jason is relieved of its first violation of advertising in public.<br><br>Also, its not difficult to find 5000 accredited investors online, as we have over 25 million accredited investors in the US alone. So 5000 isn't too difficult.<br><br>Also, if Jason change his post a bit by stating below:<br><br>Seeking individual/ private lenders! $100/ Lender rather than investor.<br><br>Then, Jason should be on his way to achieve his objective.<br><br>We believed in Investment Money From Majority For Majority (IMFM2)<br><br>Good luck Jason The system and the GOV is there to protect the special interest, not individuals as the GOV and the SEC and FINRA have claimed.

If Jason is allow to do what he proposed to do, all the institutions, VC, IB would be out of business. Also, there would be no need for the GOV grant system too because it takes the GOV FOREVER to hand out grants to business in need. Plus, business financing is not mean for everyone or all the banks would be out of business too.

I agreed that SEC and FINRA should make such changes and allow non-accredited investors to decide for ourselves on “micro investments” without all the GOV scrutiny and red tapes.

Of course, there are ways to go around the SEC because Jason's post on twitter only violated two areas.

1) advertise in public

2) Without qualifying investors

Thus, Jason can very well host an online seminar without accepting investment money and to build “existing relationship with potential investors, FIRST. By doing so. Jason is relieved of its first violation of advertising in public.

Also, its not difficult to find 5000 accredited investors online, as we have over 25 million accredited investors in the US alone. So 5000 isn't too difficult.

Also, if Jason change his post a bit by stating below:

Seeking individual/ private lenders! $100/ Lender rather than investor.

Then, Jason should be on his way to achieve his objective.

We believed in Investment Money From Majority For Majority (IMFM2)

Good luck Jason

]]> By: IMFM2 http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/08/20/twitter-a-micro-financing-vehicle/comment-page-1/#comment-343500 IMFM2 Sun, 19 Oct 2008 04:44:00 +0000 http://www.mathewingram.com/work/?p=2610#comment-343500 The system and the GOV is there to protect the special interest, not individuals as the GOV and the SEC and FINRA have claimed.<br><br>If Jason is allow to do what he proposed to do, all the institutions, VC, IB would be out of business. Also, there would be no need for the GOV grant system too because it takes the GOV FOREVER to hand out grants to business in need. Plus, business financing is not mean for everyone or all the banks would be out of business too.<br><br>I agreed that SEC and FINRA should make such changes and allow non-accredited investors to decide for ourselves on "micro investments" without all the GOV scrutiny and red tapes.<br><br>Of course, there are ways to go around the SEC because Jason's post on twitter only violated two areas.<br><br>1) advertise in public<br><br>2) Without qualifying investors<br><br>Thus, Jason can very well host an online seminar without accepting investment money and to build "existing relationship with potential investors, FIRST. By doing so. Jason is relieved of its first violation of advertising in public.<br><br>Also, its not difficult to find 5000 accredited investors online, as we have over 25 million accredited investors in the US alone. So 5000 isn't too difficult.<br><br>Also, if Jason change his post a bit by stating below:<br><br>Seeking individual/ private lenders! $100/ Lender rather than investor.<br><br>Then, Jason should be on his way to achieve his objective.<br><br>We believed in Investment Money From Majority For Majority (IMFM2)<br><br>Good luck Jason The system and the GOV is there to protect the special interest, not individuals as the GOV and the SEC and FINRA have claimed.

If Jason is allow to do what he proposed to do, all the institutions, VC, IB would be out of business. Also, there would be no need for the GOV grant system too because it takes the GOV FOREVER to hand out grants to business in need. Plus, business financing is not mean for everyone or all the banks would be out of business too.

I agreed that SEC and FINRA should make such changes and allow non-accredited investors to decide for ourselves on “micro investments” without all the GOV scrutiny and red tapes.

Of course, there are ways to go around the SEC because Jason's post on twitter only violated two areas.

1) advertise in public

2) Without qualifying investors

Thus, Jason can very well host an online seminar without accepting investment money and to build “existing relationship with potential investors, FIRST. By doing so. Jason is relieved of its first violation of advertising in public.

Also, its not difficult to find 5000 accredited investors online, as we have over 25 million accredited investors in the US alone. So 5000 isn't too difficult.

Also, if Jason change his post a bit by stating below:

Seeking individual/ private lenders! $100/ Lender rather than investor.

Then, Jason should be on his way to achieve his objective.

We believed in Investment Money From Majority For Majority (IMFM2)

Good luck Jason

]]> By: mathewi http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/08/20/twitter-a-micro-financing-vehicle/comment-page-1/#comment-339031 mathewi Thu, 21 Aug 2008 20:08:21 +0000 http://www.mathewingram.com/work/?p=2610#comment-339031 Looking forward to it, Michael. Looking forward to it, Michael.

]]> By: Michael Garrity http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/08/20/twitter-a-micro-financing-vehicle/comment-page-1/#comment-339030 Michael Garrity Thu, 21 Aug 2008 19:59:10 +0000 http://www.mathewingram.com/work/?p=2610#comment-339030 Hey Mathew - I saw this string at TechCrunch yesterday and thought of wading in to illuminate the issue as it relates to "social lending" in general but thought the US nature of the discussion wasn't relevant. Now that you have has brought the issue home though, I'll wade in. At CommunityLend, we know this issue PARTICULARLY well as it is one of the central defining issues in launching a social lending service in Canada. Rest assured, there are ways of still using social networks for collecting people around financial requests that stays within the heavy constraints of Canadian law (as we will demonstrate in our planned launch in the next couple of months) - it's just VERY complicated. I take it we can count on you as an early user. : ) Hey Mathew – I saw this string at TechCrunch yesterday and thought of wading in to illuminate the issue as it relates to “social lending” in general but thought the US nature of the discussion wasn't relevant. Now that you have has brought the issue home though, I'll wade in. At CommunityLend, we know this issue PARTICULARLY well as it is one of the central defining issues in launching a social lending service in Canada. Rest assured, there are ways of still using social networks for collecting people around financial requests that stays within the heavy constraints of Canadian law (as we will demonstrate in our planned launch in the next couple of months) – it's just VERY complicated. I take it we can count on you as an early user. : )

]]>