Twetch ·
Interesting conversation. I strongly disagree. Owning shares in a company !== owning shares in a person. That's called "Slavery". I assume your intentions are honorable, but there's likely a good reason to abstract investment to an entity which cannot die https://twetch.app/t/3cc23d3cef852b146c7797394e8d74b771423633cb45cac8dd908231f4aa60b9
Replies
Twetch ·
Entities which cannot die are already dead... because they were never alive to begin with. There's something to be said for the early American version of the corporate charter, which required evidence of social returns in order to be renewed. 2 sided coins
Twetch ·
Agreed. How interesting! What kind of social evidence was required? Can you give an example?
Twetch ·
There's some information here https://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate-accountability-history-corporations-us/
Plenty of other materials out there.
Twetch ·
I think you met Mephisto 👹
Twetch ·
Slavery historically did not involve negotiations, so it is a bold statement to compare my question to slavery as a concept
I also did not say owning shares of companies = owning shares of a person
I said companies are persons, formed as a legal entity
Twetch ·
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
Twetch ·
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
Twetch ·
@255 did hint at he has some kind of solution or idea for what I asked for
Lets see
Twetch ·
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.
Twetch ·
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
Twetch ·
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?
Twetch ·
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?
Twetch ·
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
Twetch ·
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.
Twetch ·
A lot would go wrong.
Twetch ·
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.
Twetch ·
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!
Twetch ·
Sure, but nobody is forced to take the risk. I just want the opportunity, if I get scammed eventually, it is my problem.
Twetch ·
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.
Twetch ·
Thanks for raising the question. I love talking about stuff I barely understand. Makes me realise how little I know.
Twetch ·
^ Okay I really need to STFU now. I’m confusing distributions. Normal vs Pareto.
Twetch ·
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, —
Twetch ·
Deeply conversation. I think BSV will eliminate the corporate legal system and revert to the individual. At the same time, funding will also take individuals as the main body of legal responsibility, rather than companies. I'm drafting such an agreement.
Twetch ·
Nice to meet you, Liu. Sounds promising.
I know you are on Coingeek, too. Why not write an article about exactly that?
Twetch ·
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
Twetch ·
— 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.
Twetch ·
But because it wouldn’t work out for most, the investment format would fail and then you’ll end up with lemons only again.
Twetch ·
Nice to see you too.I have some legal cases in hand,in time I will write.
Twetch ·
I’m curious to see your work, while remaining skeptical. I would argue CEOs do take personal responsibility for their company. The liability is limited so that if they fuck up, they can try again. How will this agreement allow that freedom? Could be huge!