GTA questionables.

From: Alex Ferguson <abf_at_yeats.ucc.ie>
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 21:23:34 GMT

David Dunham doesn't take my point remotely seriously:
> > But what you can do is to provide something with (intended) on-going
> > benefits (as per the Hero level donation, for example), with all the
> > usual caveats that it's not an investment, may or may not actually
> > come up with the goods, blah blah blah.

> I was only involved in part of the legal discussions, but simply saying
> that something isn't an investment (or even getting both parties to agree
> to this) is not sufficient to prevent it from being treated as an
> investment.

Sounds like you're 'refuting' an argument I didn't employ. (Not that's isn't Standard Rhetorical Technique #3 around here.) We're not talking about just _any_ sort of 'investment', with "this isn't an investment" fine print. To get concrete once again, what I'm suggesting, in general terms, are on-going benefits, at all (or at least more of), the "levels". Y'know, just like "Hero" already has. Unless the scheme is _already_ an illegal Investmentalike, I don't see why one would assert, claim, imply or indeed have any concerns that it would become illegal if there were _some sort of_ on-ongoing benefits at other levels.

If you tell me this isn't going to be sensibly economic, then that's an argument that at least makes sense to me (though I may quibble with the nuances of that one, too).

> > How many RM's so far, David? ;-)
>
> 5 (out of 32 donors). Also 5 Heroes. See the web site.

See an updated page on the website which isn't marked as updated, to be precise. I'm sure it _could_ have been hidden better, but...

I (still) think that there aren't (significantly) _more_ RM's than Heroes is reasonable evidence of oddness. Your pyramid scheme is top-heavy! (Yes, I know it's not anything like an actual pyramid scheme, in case anyone feels flame-happy.)

Slainte,
Alex.

---