danielahn

Yes - and even from the government - consider McCarthyism or Hoover's FBI and the civil rights movement.

This fear of saying the wrong thing seems to say a lot more about the expanding reach of both corporations and individuals (and for individuals, the growing scale of memetic behavior) rather than some change in attitude towards free speech.

To emphasize the point on the value of signaling - I know plenty of people who actively avoid branded items that could easily fit into their budgets because they think it's ridiculous to pay the premium - this is also signaling, especially if you belong to a tribe that knows you have that sort of money. Gets lost in the mental calculus of why a person buys a certain good (value, function, etc.), but as another commenter pointed out, luxury designer brands often fit better which makes the wearer look better, and the decision is rarely just about about which item provides more value for the 'cover a part of your body' use.

Yes - those El Salvadoreans - since they are born with only 3 fingers on each hand, they have a very difficult time using tools that were designed for people with 5 fingers on each hand.

Did you read the article you posted? Actual tulip mania, as described in the article, is much more similar to what is happening in bitcoin than the mythologized tulip mania.

Frantic speculation in a narrow space with the market eventually crashing when speculative buyers are no longer willing to bid up?

Do you live in Quebec? Why do you get to decide what is reasonable for them?

Personally, I have an issue if municipalities try to impose differential standards, but asking Uber to have its drivers conform to existing standards seems reasonable.

Sorry for late reply!

20% is standard SPAC comp.

Also yes, I apologize, you are right - they get 20% of the value of the SPAC, so if they buy 10% of a company, they are only getting 20% promote on that 10%.

SPACs issue units to their founders that will convert into approximately 20% ownership upon the successful completion of a deal

Why not just ask Social Capital to invest out of their VC fund? The only difference is liquidity in public markets, and if that's all you want, why are you giving up 20% of the upside from your current valuation when it would cost you less than 1% of your current to IPO yourself?

For asset managers, the reason you form a SPAC is because you will get upside in the form of convertible warrants that will net you ~20% ownership, essentially for free (cost of your time to find and close a deal, and minimal upfront cost), assuming the stock price outperforms the original issue price.

You should ask yourself why an existing owner who believes in the future of their company would be willing to give up 20% upside to avoid the cost of an IPO. I would suggest that the very act of giving up this 20% promote for a 'hot' unicorn tells you something about the valuation that the SPAC eventually does a deal at.

Misread your comment