So, the unsubscribe address email@example.com they cite in their mail apparently doesn’t exist. Does that mean they removed the mailing list already to avoid further e-mail storm (the fact that I only got one misguided mail from a guy who doesn’t know how Reply To All works makes me think so). Or how do I get out of this mailing list?
It worked for me a few days ago. I just followed the instructions (just send it an email and it’ll reply telling you what to do, basically just hit reply and send) and was told by that email that I was unsubscribed.
Thanks - I only got the investment e-mail about 24h ago, and just tried to unsubscribe, but my mail bounced.
Look at this new platform for issuing stocks buy and selling if necesary with out any trouble
Investment Tool to make purism stock more widely avialable.
I have seen, I believe, 4 different investment rounds that Purism has sent emails out about. In ALL of them the funding goal to be reached is almost nearly always reached at the very beginning.
Is this just because people are so eager to invest or is something fishy here.
Follow up question: how in the world are you gobbling up circa 12 million in the span of 2 years? Even if those numbers are not even close to accurate, that is still my question: what the heck are you all trying to have so much debt for?
It’s cleary because they have very high R&D costs and also plan to stock up new hardware in advance (see the new tablet which seems to be already there) unlike with the Librem 5.
I’m pretty sure it’s the same total amount of money, not a new from-zero investment round happening every time
Meaning that, the last time I checked the funding rounds (couple of months ago), they made it just under $3M, and now they’re just above $3.7M. Total amount: $3.7M, not $6.7M.
No, each round lasts different amounts of months and also have different fundraising goals. You can verify this using the Wayback Machine.
There are 20 saved web crawls, so have fun doing the calculations, including the present round too.
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|
|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…|
|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|
|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…|
|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.
- 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.
- 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.