Purism Investment Opportunity Email

Although… I base my assertion on the fact that the number never goes down, and always starts a new funding “round” at a value very close to what it was at the end of the previous round.

Let’s take this latest one. We’re at day 1 of 30, and the total amount is already $3,785,350

This number will very slowly crawl up. Where did the 3.7M come from, then?

Last round a few months ago ended up short of the 3.5M goal - on the archive, latest we can see is: $2,725,750 / 3.5M goal

It may very well be that behind the scenes before it’s made public there’s massive investments each time. It may also be that it’s just the same cumulative amount presented each time, that is slowly inching towards a goal (that is also slowly going up).

Sure, so you are reaffirming your assertion and “fact” even though I have already provided a credible resource to debunk your claim via verification. I am generously providing you an opportunity to rescind your claim, but if you want to double down without challenging it yourself, then I will slowly go through the process of providing arguments with timestamp citations to counter it.

The writing is on the wall, so I hardly see any urgency in this matter; the question is not if, but when you would prefer your argument to be defeated.

There is no need to speculate anything here; all you have proven so far is that you have not challenged your own assertion and “fact” yourself by verification using the Wayback Machine.

Here is the archived data of the last investment runs:

Days in Amount raised Goal in US $ Note
1/60 (17 Jul, 2021) 2,510,000 3,000,000 New round
4/60 2,971,000 3,000,000
6/60 4,100,000 3,000,000
9/60 4,125,000 3,000,000
13/60 4,278,000 3,000,000
16/60 4,362,000 3,000,000
37/60 4,550,000 3,000,000
40/60 9,657,000 3,000,000
55/60 9,753,000 3,000,000
59/60 (Sep 14, 2021) 9,771,000 3,000,000
60/60 (28 Oct, 2021) 9,811,000 3,000,000
1/60 (Apr 10, 2022) 10,200,000 10,000,000 New round with more than 10 Mio. in one day…
6/60 10,268,000 10,000,000
10/60 10,269,000 10,000,000
21/60 10,291,000 10,000,000
52/60 (May 31, 2022) 10,477,000 10,000,000
60/60 (Jun 28, 2022) 10,504,000 10,000,000
39/100 (Nov 6, 2022) 2,664,000 3,500,000 New round
67/100 2,664,000 3,500,000
74/100 2,664,000 3,500,000
176/190 (Mar 27, 2023) 2,667,000 3,500,000 round got extended from 100 to 190 days
9/30 (May 11, 2023) 2,725,750 3,500,000 New round with more than 2 Mio. in 9 days…
24/30 2,742,550 3,500,000
29/30 (May 31, 2023) 2,756,200 3,500,000
+30/30 (6 Sep, 2023) 3,783,250 3,500,000
1/30 (9 Sep, 2023) 3,785,350 4,000,000 New round with more than 3 Mio. in one day…

So you’re telling me that between Nov 28 (2022) and Mar 27 (2023) they only managed to acquire 3000 US $ (started at 2,664,000 US $, ended up with 266700 US $). Then from the start of May 2023 they somehow managed to acquire 2,725,750 US $ within 9 days and it’s just a coincidence that that amount is slightly larger than the end result of their last run. Then within next 20 days they only managed to raise 30,450 US $. And now in Sep 2023 they again somehow managed to raise close to 4 Mio US$ within a day (which again, is only slightly above the result of the last run)?

To me there really seems to be only one reset in all those years: After they raised more than 10 Mio US$ in summer 22. Because were looking at 5 different runs here and yet somehow the number goes down in between runs only in one instance.

Edit: I added a few numbers from user comments. Somehow they managed to also raise more than 10 Mio. US$ in just one day in April 2022 (after the last round ended with just below 10 Mio. US$). Interestingly the reset after the 10 Mio. being raised, was done after a few people noticed that the numbers up to that point were highly suspicious (i.e. new rounds seemed to always start with the end result of the last round).


Perfect, I appreciate you doing this work for us.

I am not telling you anything; the data speaks for itself. I will quote my claims as a reminder to my contribution within this thread.

  1. Most rounds lasted 60 days, but one of them lasted 190 days (extended from 100 days), and the last few recent ones were 30 days.
  2. The rounds had $3M, 3.5M, 4M, and 10M fundraising goals.

I will add the other assertion and “fact” I was contesting earlier from another contributor.

The fundraising goal goes down from $10M to $3.5M after June 28th, 2022.

As for the rest of their statement, “very close” is a subjective definition and therefore cannot be argued against. However, my intuition agrees with their general notion and therefore I also highly suspect funds are being carried over from previous rounds.

It is slightly misleading to refer to this as debt. It’s a convertible note, which is not quite the same thing.

I see it as debt, because there is an expectation of a return on any investment received. In some ways this is worse than a debt.

Worse for whom?

For Purism. Maybe I am misunderstanding this whole thing, but I would have thought that this point was very clear for everyone?

Probably not clear then. I would have said that in some respects this is worse for the investor (that is, a convertible note is worse for the investor than debt is).

It is more misleading to say that it is not debt: “a convertible note is a type of short-term debt financing”

It is debt, just because it can be repaid as equity as an option instead of repaying the cash doesn’t mean it isn’t debt to be repaid.

Well, OK, but the bottom line is that Purism refers to it as a convertible note and that’s what it is.

The conditions attaching to convertible notes generally can be quite complex and the details should be read carefully.

That’s like saying it’s not cellular it’s 5G because AT&T calls it 5G. It’s still cellular, and convertible note debt is still debt…

1 Like

Since I got my phone, I am not so interested in doing anything to harm Purism. But they do appear to be willing to break the law and to break their promises (recinding early “immediate refund” promises). Why would anyone want to invest in that? Anyone could forward Purism’s offer to sell unregistered Securities to unaccredited investors, to the Securities Exchange Commission. Why invest in a company that could be taken down so easily and its officers go to prison? The reason I so highly suspect that these Securities are illegal is because of our claims here. If I were Todd or Kyle, I would jump in to this thread right about now (or sooner) and correct any incorrect information. All they have to do is give their SEC registration numbers and explain how we can verify that Purism’s actions are legal. But no. They stay silent. If people were accusing you of crimes, would you correct the record? Maybe not if you knew they were correct. I suspect that Purism is getting large investments from wealthy people anyway. But if the investment offers are even being pitched to unaccredited investors (much less taking money from them), they’re still breaking the law. I know that they are doing this because they offered to sell me thess securuties and I do not qualify as an accredited investor.

I assume you are only talking about investors in the US. (For the same reason, most investment opportunities offered in my country explicitly exclude investors in the US, because compliance with US securities law is too onerous.)

(For US investors) You the investor are claiming to be an “accredited investor” and to meet the necessary conditions. So as long as you the investor do not lie, there is no problem. If you do lie and it all goes to shit, who knows where that lands.

There are many schools of thought on that. Many people over the years have faced that exact quandary. You should examine the actual outcomes achieved in court and in the court of public opinion. It is not a simple question to answer but would be better pursued as a separate topic.

1 Like

If you can get the SEC to prosecute, nothing more than filing the complaint is necessary. Then the full force of the United States government lands squarely on the perpetrator. Signing a contract to take part in an illegal activity for many unsophisticated people can be a single act of ignorance. The price is likely to be only the loss of their money. Such a contract to conduct an illegal transaction is void in any event. I wouldn’t want to be the multi-million dollar company that launched that scheme and collected several million dollars in violation of Federal statutes. Ignorance won’t do much for them. Even advertising such a scheme to the general public is illegal. The laws are there to prevent exactly what Purism is doing, from happening. When it happens, people go to prison.

Just a FYI, Kyle hasn’t worked for Purism for a while now


Wasting time like this is a bad strategy and unnecessary.

Investment opportunity mails like these are not public. Internet might help spread it but legally not an action of Purism.


In other words, just as valid as an investment opportunity from Kaz?

1 Like


A typical PDF prospectus that is made available to people in my country contains language such as

This prospectus may not be distributed in the United States

Each Applicant in the Offer is deemed to represent that the Applicant is not a U.S. person and is not acting for the account or benefit of a U.S. person. The Applicant agrees not to offer or sell <<insert name of security>> in the United States or to, or for the benefit of, U.S. persons.

(and it goes on with more legalese along the same lines)

but in the internet era everybody understands that that is laughable. It can’t be enforced by the company offering the securities and it can’t be enforced on every person who downloads the PDF.

(The PDF is typically not just downloadable directly from a public web page. You have to click through a few screens saying that you are not ‘dodgy’ and that you won’t do ‘dodgy’ things before you reach the screen where you get to download the PDF. Like EULAs, most people click through without reading.)

So the company protects itself by stating clearly what the rules are and if someone who applies for the securities breaks the rules, and gets found out, then the hope is that it is on the applicant.

1 Like

This was sent October 4th, with some slight truncation:

The revenue share asset backed loan page has relevant information regarding the recent discussion in this thread.

1 Like