Ask HN: Wefunder has been invited to Washington DC. What should we ask? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Wefunder has been invited to Washington DC. What should we ask?

15 pointszapnap3 comments

Last week, we launched a petition (http://wefunder.com) to raise awareness about the Crowdfunding securities reform being debated in Congress. Thanks to HN and Reddit, after 2 days, over $4 million was pledged... causing Wefunder to be invited to Washington to talk to some of the lawmakers involved in the legislation.

On Friday, we're flying down to DC to meet with staff from all the players in the debate - two Senators (Brown, Merkley), the lead Congressman (McHenry), and the President's Office.

Some good points were raised in this thread: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3529045. What other concerns or questions can we bring up? We have a chance of influencing the legislation.

As an example, one question we plan to ask: High-growth startups obviously don't want 3000 investors on their cap table. Can the proposed funding intermediaries give a business one giant check, and manage a fund of small investors, one for each startup?

Section 7(a)(G)(ii)(IX) would require that crowdfunding intermediaries require "each potential investor to answer questions demonstrating competency in" understanding various types of risks involved in such investments. Should the SEC be required to provide a list of questions which, if answered correctly by potential investors, would provide a safe-haven to the intermediary? If not, should the bill be more specific with regard to the level of competency to be demonstrated?

Sec. 7(a)(G)(ii)(XI) requires intermediaries to carry out a background check on the issuer's principals. What must such a background check consist of in order to satisfy this criteria? How is this information to be used? (kept on file by intermediary? Disclosed to potential investors? Filed with the commission?)

This thread is important, i hope it gets more attention.

Ability to fund start-ups is a start, you might also need a parallel start-up type visa so foreign entrepreneurs can create jobs and great products.

Just for the record for me a good investor visa:

-Tie the visa to the start up, if it fails they have to leave, cant work for other companies. As a corollary they cant take a job that previously existed, they can only add jobs.

-Reduce or remove current capital requirements 500,000-1m is way overkill.

-Keep the 'must create n jobs' requirement, but give more time to create the n jobs. Forcing start ups to hire 5/10 people in one year is not cool.

If the legislation passes, will the intermediary companies be responsible for educating the roughly 230 million new investors in the country or will the government take an active role in this process?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com