Once your purchase is confirmed, we'll send you information via email on how to fulfill your purchase and your certificate. The certificate is redeemable either for securities through a broker-dealer for those who setup an account, or else for merchandise.

All of the proceeds from our Early Is Everything Pre-IPO Pricing Event are being donated to MissionBit, a Bay Area nonprofit that sponsors underprivileged high school students in the San Francisco Bay Area to learn computer development skills.

We'll be giving over 100 people the opportunity to get in early on Facebook ($4.54) and Tesla ($2.97).

As per the Event FAQ on the linked site, we're taking a loss on every certificate to prove a point — that when it comes to investing in the most successful companies in the world, early is everything.

The "Early is Everything" promotion offers eligible participants the opportunity to purchase a certificate at the pre-IPO price of either Facebook or Tesla Motors, redeemable for securities through a registered broker-dealer, or for merchandise, at the current price of these companies as of July 13, 2016. Offer good while supplies last. Other terms and restrictions apply, please see event page for full details. See: https://early.equidateinc.com/

YMMV.

Just friendly advice and also caution to others I guess. For a site that talks about having institutional investors and having one of the top legal firms in the world this mlm and internet riches type vibe is what I got. Again, you guys may be great, but this is very unprofessional / gimmicky in my opinion

Each person is limited to one certificate. The certificate is redeemable either for securities (i.e. a share of Facebook at its closing price as of July 13, 2016) through a broker-dealer for those who setup an account, or else for merchandise. It's structured like this specifically to ensure that we're compliant with relevant regulation.

We're well aware of Sandhill Exchange — they were akin to a prediction market — we're a market where employees and investors who own shares are able to get liquidity, and accredited investors are able to invest.

We've worked with our primary outside counsel, Lowenstein Sandler (an internationally-prominent securities law firm), to ensure our compliance with all regulation. As the article mentions, we've discussed Equidate with regulators since 2014, and this past January FINRA approved our purchase of a broker-dealer.

Finally, we've gone above and beyond to make sure our customers are protected. We have an exclusive underwriting agreement and insurance policy with Munich Re, the world's largest reinsurance company, to protect our investors from fraud.

It's very rare for a startup our size to have a full-time Chief Legal Officer & Chief Compliance Officer, and it's a testament to our efforts to get this right.

I don't mean these questions to be critical, if this service works it could turn a source of frustrating uncertainty into cash.

Feel free to reach out to info@equidateinc.com if you have questions that are specific to you and we'd be happy to help!

We've built tools to use this data: https://equidateinc.com/browse Without even signing up, you can answer questions like: "Show me Series B/C companies that have raised $10-100M, have a valuation of $100M-$1B, have less than 200 employees, with a B2B business model in the Transportation industry." We think that's awesome — whether you're an investor looking for investment opportunities, an employee looking for a new job, or a just doing research on companies, it can be incredibly powerful for the entire ecosystem to have access to this data and the tools to use it.

Companies don't IPO for a variety of reasons. Going public is a source of financing for companies — in recent years, with hedge funds and private equity firms participating in Series B/C/Ds++, there is a lot more capital available in the private market. New regulation has made it far more expensive to go public and to stay public. Going public is arduous on the company from the perspective of the time and attention it takes from management. And finally, once a company is public, they are subject to the whims of the market and have to answer to new investors who have a short-term focus on quarter-to-quarter earnings, often at the cost of not being able to have full autonomy to execute on their long-term vision.

Finding a willing other party is the trick, in part because a lack of information makes people wary of trading. So this company provides a little more information and a matchmaking registry.

I'm also always happy to chat and answer any of your questions. Feel free to email me: sohail at equidateinc dot com

The article raises excellent points on the pitfalls of trading pre-IPO stock on secondary markets. The opportunity is risky to be sure, only for educated investors as ready and able to lose money as to make money. Information is limited and protections are only as good as the integrity of the participants. That puts a premium on honestly, transparency, and strict adherence to securities regulations.

The American economy is built on liquidity and rapid turn-around of investments: new company founders, investors, even venture capitalists and private equity fund managers got where they are because an early exit allowed them to cash in early gains in order to re-invest in the market. This used to take a few years, but now, due to market changes, they will no longer see a penny until their company goes public after an average 7.5-year wait. More likely, their company will fail despite years of hard work and success, leaving them nothing. Secondary markets are a relief valve for these founders, early angel investors, and current and former employees.

When shares cannot be traded, even the most ambitious and brilliant entrepreneurs are locked in for the better part of a decade, waiting for something to happen. If they have liquidity they can start something new — perhaps a cure to disease, a new media company, or one that launches rocket ships. This liquidity is how many of today’s great companies got their start.

Collectively, we owe it to founders and investors, and the economy, to create reliable secondary markets. That’s why Equidate was founded.

That's bullshit. We let poor people gamble and they aren't "ready and able" to lose anything.

The laws around accredited investing are a disgusting example of how the 1% legally entitle themselves to opportunities while excluding the other 99%.

Also gambling odds are heavily controlled. Could you imagine a pit boss telling you "Table 5's die have an unfair advantage to land on 7"? Conversely, people raising money tell you exactly why they will succeed and why they are a better choice than some other company. These people can be very convincing as well.

When gambling, bets are easy to understand. You make a static bet before the wheel spins. When investing, size of the pot depends on how well the company was valued when you made that bet. The next players may decide that the company was only worth half what you paid. This isn't something uneducated investors expect.

The reason we don't let 99% of people buy shares of private companies has NOTHING to do with protecting the wealth of the 99%. Nothing. Zero. And to pretend like people with less than a million dollars in liquid assets are "too dumb" or "inexperienced" to purchase something is beyond insulting.

It has everything to do with creating a private market where the 1% can get in early before the price rises as public money flows in. Wouldn't want too many poor people to get in early. Wouldn't want to have to deal with a bidding war against poor people. Better off to just exclude them from the buying process when the price is low and then sell it to them later when everyone wants it.

It's an institutionalized example of a law designed to maintain a plutocracy. It's disgusting.

I never really understood just how stacked the cards were until I tried to buy FB shares on the secondary market one day. I wasn't allowed to. What the fuck? Then I got married and I became an accredited investor over night. I'm like, "Wow. Really? REALLY?!?! This is how it works?" Then I lost my status as the result of a divorce. So a few years ago I was smart and experienced enough to take on that risk. Now I'm not.

Really? Because a lot of that group said they "didn't know any better" and were "misled" when it came to bad mortgages during the crunch. Whether you believe them or not, that was their argument and it worked.

There are entire industries based on exploiting people with bad money management skills (payday lenders, rent-to-own, etc). Clearly the population exists.

I don't think most people realize how true the adages are, "the rich keep getting richer," or, "it takes money to make money," really are. People say it, and other people feel it's true, but then they can't point to anything tangible. But there it is. Current SEC regulation basically institutionalizes this.

Here is a financial opportunity that's actually not that complicated, which is no more risky than other available opporutinies, but we have actually made it the law such that, "Only the 1% may do this."

(There certainly were people who just made bad decisions. But there was also widespread, documented fraud on the part of lenders.)

What else are you going to tell people when you lose half a mil? That sounds a lot better than "Honey, I gambled our financial future trying to get rich in the housing market, and you'll never believe what happened..."

In reality loosening that restriction would lead to a reverse selection bias, where only extremely unfit companies would approach such investors. Talk to any startup and their preference of funding is ranked roughly this way:

1) Value-add VC

2) Non-value-add VC with big pockets

3) Value-add angel/superangel/seed fund

4) Non-value-add angel/superangel/seed fund

5) Randoms

By removing the gatekeepers we're back to that scene in "Wolf of Wall Street" where random brokers call up some widow in Nebraska to pitch her on some "high tech company about to go big" and forgetting to mention they're getting a 50% commission on this.

Meanwhile someone in the league of Google, Facebook or Uber would not go this route just because they already filled their rounds.

> And to pretend like people with less than a million dollars in liquid assets are "too dumb" or "inexperienced" to purchase something is beyond insulting.

This is less about treating the folks as "dumb" vs "bright" and more about access to proper financial professionals. Accredited investors typically have access to a financial advisor, investment consultant, attorney and a CPA whom they can ask to "look things over". The lower the total assets number, the higher are the chances that no financial advisor is ever involved.

You seem pretty confident in your hypothesis. Have you gone back and looked at what drove the change in regulations? It's not like these regulations are passed with supporting evidence. The regulation was passed in 1933, right after the crash.

Between protecting investors and "creating a private market for the 1%", I'm thinking the first seems more rational.

Investing in a private company that's about to go IPO is actually not that risky when compared to multitude of other investment instruments that are available.

The secondary market is private market for the 1%. That's literally what it is. Maybe that's not how it started or how it was originally sold, but that's what it is. And it's now institutionalized and part of the law.

The idea that it's about protection is just absurd. It's absurd. Are you telling me you are glad that the 1% is out there making sure that you can't invest in Facebook for $20/share? Protection? Really?

The resulting rules changes can be revisionist-history interpreted as protecting the 99%. But remember at the time, the gilded age had passed; labor reforms were in place etc (Teddy Roosevelt, 1910s) and laws such as these were under fierce scrutiny for favoritism.

Still, today it does what it does regardless of the initial impetus. And what it does is prevent most people from playing most games.

But legally anointing an "accredited investor" class based on their current financial resources clearly advantages the rich over the poor. There are other ways to protect investors without categorically denying opportunities for savvy, non-wealth individuals (and people who are currently wealthy also deserve protection from fraudsters).

To be honest, the gov't is kind of stuck here. Let people make their own choices and they blame someone else. "I didn't know the mortgage rate was only a teaser!!"

At least with the credited investor regulations, if they lose money, nobody has sympathy for them.

I'm pretty sure if anyone could invest in private equity, overnight you'd see a flood of get-rich-quick ventures crop up and you'd see a lot of people lose everything.

I'm not sure if I think the current legal system is fair, but without acknowledging the huge amount of risk involved in changing it any argument against it is hard to take seriously.

Mortgages are sold by people in a dual advisor/salesperson role, just like auto mechanics (and doctors and plumbers...). Non-predatory lenders give people reasonable advice about what kind of mortgage people can afford, just like an honest auto mechanic gives reasonable advice to people on what repairs are necessary and don't suggest unnecessary services or repairs.

Just as sketchy auto mechanics who try to overcharge for repairs or encourage a customer to have entirely unnecessary service or repairs done, predatory lenders knowingly push people to purchase mortgage products that they cannot afford.

You can't on one hand hold people who make bad money decisions unaccountable and at the same time say they should have access to all the high risk opportunities.

It has to be one or the other.

Actually, there are a lot of parallels between a startup and a racehorse. If you evaluate a horse's past performance, trainer, position in the field, etc you can bend the odds. It's still gambling!

No we don't! There are no reliable secondary markets and there is not going to be one simply because they are based on pure speculation. It exists for one reason only - shareholders of pre-IPO companies don't want to wait years and hence are willing to trade their shares for immediate cash.

Secondary markets are just another way to create derivates. And we all know how unregulated derivates turned out!

Your last paragraph doesn't make any sense to me. Mostly people sell equity shares on secondary markets. Equity shares are not derivatives. They can also sell stock options, which are derivatives, but are not created when they are sold on a secondary market. It sounds to me like all you know is that the word "derivatives" is scary, so things you don't like must be derivatives.

Yes, secondary markets are designed to provide liquidity to shareholders in pre-IPO companies. At the same time, most investors who want access to pre-IPO stocks have no ability to participate. Value creation has increasingly shifted from the public markets toward private markets. Consider eBay, which was valued at $32 million in 1996 and went public with a $1.9 billion valuation in 1998 (a 60x gain), compared to Twitter which went public in 2013 at a $24 billion valuation, a 657x gain from their $35 million valuation in 2007.

Why should those who are extremely wealthy and well connected be the only investors with access to such investments?

A secondary market is any market where securities are traded not with the company, but with a third party. The big stock exchanges (NYSE, Nasdaq) are primarily secondary markets (only IPOs are primary, and even then, the primary transaction is to underwriters who then resell the stock as a secondary to other investors in the IPO).

A derivative is whether you're selling a real share, or something else based on that share. A derivative can be both primary or secondary. Employee stock options are derivatives, and what Equidate trades is also a derivative. If you sell your stock directly to a buyer in a secondary transaction, then it's not a derivative, and the company usually has the right to intercept the transaction (the right of first refusal).

I used to work at Palantir. If I want to know what my shares are worth, GSV (which is publicly traded) owns Palantir common and preferred shares (as well as shares in several other private companies) and reports a fair market value in their public 10-Q and 10-K filings. This is useful as a baseline sanity check. There are also enough interested buyers that it's feasible to get multiple price quotes.

Just out of interest: do anybody buy this bullshit today? Do you talk like this in public?

Honest question: What is wrong with above sentence?

I'm looking forward to keeping the list updated and looking back in a couple years.

I wanted to publish my list publicly (esp. given YC W13 Demo Day) so I can publicly see my performance over time. No cheating and calling it after the fact. Trust me, if I had access to money to invest, I'd keep this list to myself and put my money where my mouth is.

That's expected - after all, everyone think's they're above average (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57568186/everyone-thinks...), it's the phenomenon known as illusory superiority... "On a scale of one to 10, you probably think you're a seven. And you wouldn't be alone."

(Disclaimer: though granted, I'd hazard a guess that most HN readers are generally above average.)

Not arguing the technicalities of crossing the street or why laws are made, just noting parallels between a decision that people make unconsciously every single day and its relation to life and the "big picture."