You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
2

[–] ChillyHellion [S] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

It sounds like they're planning on lowering that restriction after a test run, but I agree with you that it doesn't look like a recipe for a good game.

0
3

[–] bulksalty 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

That restriction is part of US law, to sell unregistered securities you can only sell to accredited investors. Registering their securities for an equity is the process of filing for an IPO, which would likely be required for each game funded via that method, and is expensive (both fees and lawyers time to ensure you didn't screw up or mislead investors).

0
1

[–] ChillyHellion [S] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

I really appreciate you weighing in on this, because I'm not familiar with finance law by any means. Can you give some context to this paragraph:

That kind of revenue sharing comes with some significant strings for the time being; only Accredited Investors with at least $1 million in net assets can join in, and they have to invest at least $1,000. But Fig plans to open the investment plan up to regular gamers in the next few months, pursuant to a 2012 law that lowered the regulatory burden for everyday people to get into such markets.

They seem to believe that they can make their model accessible to the general public. this is the 2012 law that was linked in the paragraph.

0
0

[–] sparkybear ago 

I thought the term accredited investors was changed after 2008 to meet a more stringent criteria than the $1 million in net assets.