

Invest in startups that pitched at YC Demo Day - npt4279
https://wefunder.com/?demoday

======
jcr
If I'm reading things correctly, people who don't qualify as an accredited
investor (or prefer not to state) are unable to invest until sometime in this
Summer 2013 when the SEC enacts Title III of the JOBS Act.

Is this correct?

~~~
npt4279
That is correct. The SEC was told by Congress to implement the entire JOBS Act
in January 2013, but they are behind schedule.

~~~
jcr
Thanks! I think it's just brilliant how wefunder is executing on a fundamental
market change (by legislation) so quickly. I remember reading about the JOBS
Act, but at the time, I really didn't grap what it meant. You did. Had things
gone as dictated by Congress, your currently great situation would be even
better.

------
dxhdr
A startup for crowd-vesting in startups...

Am I the only one that sees this as some kind of signal that the capital
markets are hopelessly fubar'd? That perhaps the dollar is turning to garbage
faster than we'd like to admit if everyone's lining up to throw thousands
after bad ideas in the hopes they'll strike it rich?

Is this really a good thing? Or maybe I'm being far too cynical here and
crowd-funding is really the road to salvation? I don't like Wall-Street
controlling capital any more than the next guy...

~~~
npt4279
We plan to have quality over quantity, so I prefer to see it as democratizing
access to investment opportunities. Previously, only the rich even heard about
the best investments. We think all Americans should have the opportunity to
invest in innovation... as soon as the SEC implements the JOBS Act.

------
web007
I'm all for "crowdfunding" startups, but I don't like the way that WeFunder is
going about it in my case.

I went through their questionnaire and found out I'm not allowed to invest -
fair enough, the rules will get fixed eventually. Then today, I got an email
today to say "We have this great investment opportunity! Oh, by the way, screw
you because you're not accredited."

Until the rules change, don't bother emailing me. Until then it's just a
tease, and a little insulting at the same time.

~~~
npt4279
That's my bad. I should have segmented the list to exclude people who were
certified as unaccredited. I forgot to do that in the rush of things. I'm
sorry for the tease!

------
plusbryan
What's the difference between wefunder and Funders Club?

------
breck
Are there any sites that aren't waiting for the SEC to let unaccredited
investors invest?

I wonder if there will be a YouTube equivalent in this space: a company that
turns a blind eye to unaccredited investors participating, and as a result
captures a huge lead in the market. IIRC user submitted illegal content was an
early driver of a lot of traffic to YouTube.

~~~
niggler
" a company that turns a blind eye to unaccredited investors participating,
and as a result captures a huge lead in the market."

There's a profound difference between a copyright violation (for which DMCA
gives some cover for the site) and a blatant violation of the securities act
of 1933

~~~
breck
IANAL so have no idea but I would not be surprised if my comparison was apples
to oranges.

------
joonix
Hmm, Wevorce raises some questions. I don't know if their disclaimer about how
they are not really a law firm would pass muster. If they are providing legal
services, they can't raise funds from non-lawyers.

------
irollboozers
This is going to be such a powerful tool in the future. Any investors who
sleep on this are going to miss out because whoever wins this space will be a
public company, hands down.

------
scottnyc
I really like this. However, I don't see anything regarding the terms and
valuation which I would invest at. How can one responsibly invest without know
what my $1000 actually gets me?

If the process is that the valuation will be set once funds are raised and I
will have the option to back out at that point - then this needs to be spelled
out. Some clarity here is needed.

~~~
npt4279
You're right; we should do a better job of communicating this. Right now, you
have to click on the invest button to see the terms, and to further complicate
things, many of the startups use the YC VC Fund Note, which delays the setting
of the valuation.

------
minimaxir
_Ramen profitable since Oct 2012_

That's an odd bullet point. "We make barely enough money and we've been doing
it for 5 months!"

------
rpicard
I find it interesting that they didn't go to great lengths to hide the
identities of the "mystery" companies.

~~~
gbelote
Cofounder here. We hide the identities of the companies for regulatory
purposes (complying with current general solicitation rules). We can talk
about general things, and if you do some light research you can probably
figure out who's raising. But we don't blatantly say "Company X is Raising
Money".

~~~
wilfra
In that case, I think it's ok if I share that the companies raising are:

Microryza, Goldbely, Zenefits and Strikingly - with Wevorce listed at the top
of the page but it says they are 'not currently fundraising'.

Conspicuously absent: wefunder ><

(if I misinterpreted your post, sorry! and I'd be happy to delete this)

