<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Alpha-Build</title>
	<atom:link href="http://alpha-build.net/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://alpha-build.net</link>
	<description>The meeting point between games, politics and philosophy.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 06:38:03 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on What Tim Schafer&#8217;s Kickstarter Project COULD Mean by nabterayl</title>
		<link>http://alpha-build.net/2012/02/10/what-tim-schafers-kickstarter-project-could-mean/#comment-492</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[nabterayl]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 06:38:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://alpha-build.net/?p=353#comment-492</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[For what it&#039;s worth, I can&#039;t think of an exemption off the top of my head.  The central feature of the scheme you describe is offering shares to the unsophisticated public, and that is precisely what the full-disclosure scheme was aimed at.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For what it&#8217;s worth, I can&#8217;t think of an exemption off the top of my head.  The central feature of the scheme you describe is offering shares to the unsophisticated public, and that is precisely what the full-disclosure scheme was aimed at.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on What Tim Schafer&#8217;s Kickstarter Project COULD Mean by Malgayne</title>
		<link>http://alpha-build.net/2012/02/10/what-tim-schafers-kickstarter-project-could-mean/#comment-491</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Malgayne]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 06:22:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://alpha-build.net/?p=353#comment-491</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I wonder how far down the rabbit hole I dare go?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I wonder how far down the rabbit hole I dare go?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on What Tim Schafer&#8217;s Kickstarter Project COULD Mean by nabterayl</title>
		<link>http://alpha-build.net/2012/02/10/what-tim-schafers-kickstarter-project-could-mean/#comment-490</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[nabterayl]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 06:02:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://alpha-build.net/?p=353#comment-490</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You might find http://www.sec.gov/info/smallbus/qasbsec.htm#eod6 informative, then.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You might find <a href="http://www.sec.gov/info/smallbus/qasbsec.htm#eod6" rel="nofollow">http://www.sec.gov/info/smallbus/qasbsec.htm#eod6</a> informative, then.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on What Tim Schafer&#8217;s Kickstarter Project COULD Mean by Malgayne</title>
		<link>http://alpha-build.net/2012/02/10/what-tim-schafers-kickstarter-project-could-mean/#comment-489</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Malgayne]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 05:34:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://alpha-build.net/?p=353#comment-489</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Interesting. It seems like this is the question that would need to be answered.

How does the SEC define the difference between a public and a private offering? I wonder if there might be some way to get around that.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting. It seems like this is the question that would need to be answered.</p>
<p>How does the SEC define the difference between a public and a private offering? I wonder if there might be some way to get around that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on What Tim Schafer&#8217;s Kickstarter Project COULD Mean by nabterayl</title>
		<link>http://alpha-build.net/2012/02/10/what-tim-schafers-kickstarter-project-could-mean/#comment-488</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[nabterayl]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 04:56:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://alpha-build.net/?p=353#comment-488</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ahhhh.  Well, that probably IS a result of the paperwork.  When you donate to somebody&#039;s Kickstarter (because that&#039;s what it really is - you aren&#039;t investing, you&#039;re donating), you know fairly little about it.  It actually isn&#039;t legal to offer INVESTMENT opportunities to the public (and Kickstarter qualifies as an offer to the public by anybody&#039;s definition, I think) on so little information.  It was, once upon a time.  And then the Great Depression happened, and people decided maybe that was a little TOO much &quot;buyer beware.&quot;

Ever since the 1930s, if you want to sell shares (or any other investment opportunity) to the public, you have to file a document with the Securities and Exchange Commission describing what it is you do (and/or plan to do) and all of the risks that a reasonable investor would want to know about, and THEN the SEC, after reading this document, has to give you the thumbs-up that they agree you have done an adequate job of describing the risks.  After that said document will become publicly available on the SEC&#039;s website for the public to read.

This is a fairly simple principle, really, but the mechanics are rather a pain.  It would certainly be a significant obstacle to your average indy developer.  In part this is because describing everything that can go wrong with your idea is just inherently difficult; in part it&#039;s because you have to convince the SEC staff (who may or may not understand your idea) that you have described everything that can go wrong; in part it&#039;s because once this document is out there, investors can sue you on the basis that it contains a material omission or misstatement of fact that, had said investor known upfront, would have changed his or her decision to invest.

So ... yeah, it&#039;s the paperwork.  But the effect of the paperwork is not to make small investments not-worthwhile directly.  Because it is inherently difficult to describe everything that can go wrong with an idea when it IS just an idea, people who are looking for investors in ideas tend to get around this disclosure requirement by simply NOT offering shares to the public.  If you&#039;re only offering shares to a small, non-public group of people, you don&#039;t have to tell them anything (the theory being that they will simply withhold their money until they feel you&#039;ve told them enough).  But of course, by definition, if you are only talking to a small group of people, each individual in that group will have to put up a sizable amount of cash.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ahhhh.  Well, that probably IS a result of the paperwork.  When you donate to somebody&#8217;s Kickstarter (because that&#8217;s what it really is &#8211; you aren&#8217;t investing, you&#8217;re donating), you know fairly little about it.  It actually isn&#8217;t legal to offer INVESTMENT opportunities to the public (and Kickstarter qualifies as an offer to the public by anybody&#8217;s definition, I think) on so little information.  It was, once upon a time.  And then the Great Depression happened, and people decided maybe that was a little TOO much &#8220;buyer beware.&#8221;</p>
<p>Ever since the 1930s, if you want to sell shares (or any other investment opportunity) to the public, you have to file a document with the Securities and Exchange Commission describing what it is you do (and/or plan to do) and all of the risks that a reasonable investor would want to know about, and THEN the SEC, after reading this document, has to give you the thumbs-up that they agree you have done an adequate job of describing the risks.  After that said document will become publicly available on the SEC&#8217;s website for the public to read.</p>
<p>This is a fairly simple principle, really, but the mechanics are rather a pain.  It would certainly be a significant obstacle to your average indy developer.  In part this is because describing everything that can go wrong with your idea is just inherently difficult; in part it&#8217;s because you have to convince the SEC staff (who may or may not understand your idea) that you have described everything that can go wrong; in part it&#8217;s because once this document is out there, investors can sue you on the basis that it contains a material omission or misstatement of fact that, had said investor known upfront, would have changed his or her decision to invest.</p>
<p>So &#8230; yeah, it&#8217;s the paperwork.  But the effect of the paperwork is not to make small investments not-worthwhile directly.  Because it is inherently difficult to describe everything that can go wrong with an idea when it IS just an idea, people who are looking for investors in ideas tend to get around this disclosure requirement by simply NOT offering shares to the public.  If you&#8217;re only offering shares to a small, non-public group of people, you don&#8217;t have to tell them anything (the theory being that they will simply withhold their money until they feel you&#8217;ve told them enough).  But of course, by definition, if you are only talking to a small group of people, each individual in that group will have to put up a sizable amount of cash.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

