I have a critical question to ask. Who should be trusted to assess the risk to new Librem 5 phone purchasers going forward? In a traditional business, there is always accountability at appropriate places within management and law. Crowdfunding appears to bypass the traditional SEC protections. In a sense, we are all mini-qualified-angel-investors, each taking their own percentage of the risk. But even an angel-investor can pull the plug in most cases, when it comes to releasing more funds going forward if the right questions aren’t answered satisfactoraly by management. Everyone seems to have the best of intentions here. But sometimes, good intentions are not enough. Other than the channels of communication (which are questionable now), there appear to be no checks and balances available here in the case of the release of this new phone. I waited until the company committed to a release date, to make my investment/purchase. That is why I expect to be in Evergreen and not in Aspen (less risk, less reward). I don’t mind waiting for the phone. I am trusting the terms of my credit card transaction and the additional protections from my credit card provider agreement with me, to protect my purchase.
At this point, I want to understand the checks and balances better. If Purism misses (for the most part) its first shipping window, I would like to see an independent third party manage all of the funds from new purchase transactions of the Librem 5 going forward at that point. An escrow account could be established to collect all new credit card purchase funds, to distribute payments of company expenses, to assess risks based on candid reports from management, and to represent the interests of new phone purchasers going forward at that point. This might fill the gap where there are not regulated stock sales nor qualified investments (a legal status of the investment itself), but instead unregulated crowdsourcing. This isn’t skeptisism nor negative thinking. It’s just good business. I want Purism to succeed. If they miss their first shipping window, perhaps some oversight would be appropriate. This should not impede the operations of any viable business. If they want me to make a donation or to please wait longer, they might want to start telling us what is really going on here, and soon… everything, candidly, now. Donors are typically generous. Investors tend to be more self-interested, and to expect to have certain rights and protections in-place. Customers just want their phones. By how they communicate, Purism gets to decide who they want to deal with, donor or investor or customer. But donors have a right to receive candid and detailed status reports. Irrespective of that, oversight of business operations might offer some credibility that Purism does not currently benefit from.