https://choosealicense.com/

https://choosealicense.com/about/

> "GitHub wants to help developers choose an open source license for their source code."

This was built by GitHub Inc a very very long time ago.

You said "The companies you want to invest in don't want your money."

Your words, you should own them.

I only want more smart people I know to have the chance to be angel investors in these companies and to be able to access secondary markets to buy and sell these shares.

What's wrong with that?

ok?

I and may other angel investors are proof you're obviously wrong so...

> This is obviously not true. Most wealthy people do not build their wealth by gambling on meme stocks and tech companies. That's an extraordinarily Twitter-blinkered thing to believe.

I never said wealthy, I said "retail investors", and most retail investors are not wealthy. Maybe you've been reading off Twitter and got that mixed up.

Your words not mine, but I'll just say the wealthy have more options than retail.

Shame, because I know some smart people who want to invest in the same companies as me and cannot and have to wait until it goes public for a that chance (if that ever comes)

Now with most growth companies staying private these people won't get a stake in the future and obviously you're fine with that.

I wonder if you would think it would be fine (if not great) if Google, Apple and other companies would just stay private in another universe.

So why are you projecting "The companies you want to invest in don't want your money." when this is obviously not true at all.

I don't know which companies you tried to invest in (tech or not) but I am assuming most of them rejected you given your constant projecting towards me.

I don't want smart people/investors who saw the future early (most that are retail and some are academics who actually build this tech) who want to get exposure to the growth companies making an impact to use extremely risky and shady financial vehicles like Multi-Layer SPVs and tokenized private stocks just to get some exposure.

When all in all it isn't the real thing and they get rugged anyway.

As long as people like you are in favor in excluding these people who just to buy a private company stock on secondary markets, then the gatekeeping will continue.

> You keep talking about accreditation. The companies you want to invest in don't want your money and they don't care that you're accredited.

You don't know that 100% and unfortunately for you the YC companies accepted my money and I now hold stock in these companies.

I love this projection you're providing to me, how much money did you lose on these companies?

I am in and have invested in YC startups, because I know which ones have growth potential and upside.

> you can make a coherent case that companies should be required to be public at a much earlier stage (I don't think it's going to happen, but you do you)

I didn't say they had to be a public company, you can invest in Stripe via the secondary market (which I have done before with other companies) but even then this is for accredited investors.

There are lots of unprofitable public companies on the stock market that also return $0 to investors and have no dividends.

But this trend of many private companies choosing to stay private obviously isn't going to help those except the very rich and accredited investors.

There is no other way for that group of retail investors to build wealth other than go into these highly and extremely risky assets that you and I hate and do not recommend. (even more risky than secondary markets)

Sure, they can invest in public companies but if lots of these high growth companies stay private, the gains will not be shared towards retail especially for their pensions.

Even worse. This means that no wealth will be created for people who actually want to invest.

With Stripe's non IPO example, many will follow and will stay private.

So more gatekeeping.