[Bansaku]

I think some people must imagine that Dan just came here and made the post, without any prior discussion happening. I can assure you, that would absolutely not be the case. I don't think we're going to see a flood of sponsors trying to use Head-Fi to raise capital.

That being said, do you honestly think, given the savaging of various sponsors' products over the years, up to the savaging Dan's offer has received in this thread, that what you said is really true? Given around half the CanJam video content is about non-sponsor products -- videos which are not monetised, that this is true?

I think you may not have seen Jason Stoddard's comment on how, when Schiit Audio appeared on Head-Fi, that he got a call from Jude asking if they were for real, and how they are funding their business.

You don't see it, but a hell of a lot goes on behind the scenes to ensure the viability of the community, and the industry. It has become far more apparent in recent times that many people are quick to believe things that are un-informed, and easy-to-disprove, yet are unwilling to go to the source of things and find out actual facts. Did you actually consider, before posting, that you could actually contact Jude and find out the facts for yourself?

Hear hear!!

 

[Haris Javed]

"Lmao my earpods have more bass"

lol....I am sure they do, I really do love my Ether CX!

 

[Law87]

Thanks for injecting some cold hard reality (and sanity). It is sad when people will just post whatever knee jerk reaction they have, instead of trying to educate themselves first.
I, for one, was not familiar with this particular type of stock offering. I did a fair amount of reading on it before deciding to contribute. I'm fortunate to be able to absorb a bit of risk and help support a small enthusiast (and for me, local) company.

an investment requires some sort of returns, its lending money in order to produce result to benefit both the company and investor. What this is, is a donation to put it simply.

 

[SDBiotek]

an investment requires some sort of returns, its lending money in order to produce result to benefit both the company and investor. What this is, is a donation to put it simply.

It's not a donation, it's buying shares of a company. Granted, these are not quite the same as what most people think of as a " regular" stock.

 

[Law87]

It's not a donation, it's buying shares of a company. Granted, these are not quite the same as what most people think of as a " regular" stock.

tell me what are your right as a share holder to this company?


p.s thats what an investment is, you are buying a share of the company aka lending money to the company in order for it to funds future project and that future project in turns created revenue to return in a form of dividends or increased company valuations.

 

[descloud]

do you honestly think, given the savaging of various sponsors' products over the years, up to the savaging Dan's offer has received in this thread, that what you said is really true?

If you read my original post, I agreed with another member on the how the recent post by DCA can set a precedent that affects members who are not as well educated financially, and not in a positive way.

Do you really believe a site like Head-fi can be run free? No, of course not. Nothing is free. That's why there's sponsors, and certain actions are needed to keep this site going. Don't get me wrong. I understand that's how it works.

While my comment appears to be overly pessimistic, I am certain that some terms and agreements are "bended" to appease sponsors. This is not uncommon. Business is business.

And with the recent post, in my opinion, it sets that stepping stone to a possible direction that I am not in support of. It may appear as an oversimplication of what is actually happening, but I stand by what I said. That is my general overview of how some head-fi admins manage and I'm not targeting Dan Clark Audio or any particular sponsor per se.

Given around half the CanJam video content is about non-sponsor products -- videos which are not monetised, that this is true?

How CanJam operates is non-relevant to how posts by sponsors are administered here - which was what I was pointing. How CanJam gets their finances to run is a separate topic that my comment was not focused on.

I think you may not have seen Jason Stoddard's comment on how, when Schiit Audio appeared on Head-Fi, that he got a call from Jude asking if they were for real, and how they are funding their business.

This is nothing short of irrelevant in what you're trying to argue.

You don't see it, but a hell of a lot goes on behind the scenes to ensure the viability of the community, and the industry

Agreed. But this does not invalidate what I said.

Did you actually consider, before posting, that you could actually contact Jude and find out the facts for yourself?

And what, have our private conversation be left private? I have already seen a number of inconsistencies with this site (i.e. NCM thread being removed for "reasons" that don't invalidate the terms and agreements on this site) that does not inspire confidence on how some of the admins run this site. At least they got NCM's thread back on, but how they process such actions doesn't shed good light as far as I'm concerned.

Admins can delete my comment if they find this inaccurate, "improper", or goes against head-fi's terms and agreements.

 

[jude]

I can understand the precedent you're referring to. I also don't want other companies using this as a pedal stool for future business opportunites moving forward...

After several failed crowdfunding campaigns (several of which I also personally paid into and didn't receive products), we no longer allow crowdfunding campaigns by companies who were not established and selling (and delivering) products prior to a proposed crowdfunding ad campaign. Since instituting this policy, we've turned down many ad campaigns from those who wished to start their companies by crowdfunding their first products.

We did allow the Audeze Mobius and Drop Panda crowdfunding ad campaigns to run here, as both Audeze and Drop have been around and selling (and delivering) products to this community for years. While this is certainly the first campaign of its type I know of in this segment, Dan Clark Audio (formerly MrSpeakers) was also established long ago, so we allowed it to be posted about here.

As is obvious in this thread, there are mixed opinions about this campaign, but those who are not comfortable with it can simply move on.

...But hey, this is head-fi, it's still run by sponsors and such so I doubt the admins would do anything if another sponsor starts doing the same...

Run by sponsors? If you mean that sponsors have more latitude to promote in the forums, that's true, and has been that way since pretty much the site's beginnings back in 2001, spelled out in the rules/terms of use. If you mean something else, let me know.

If you're suggesting that we don't allow posts criticizing sponsors and/or their products, then I suggest you actually browse the forums more closely -- and you might start by reading this very thread -- and you'll see that's definitely not true.

...As much as we hate people getting hit hard with a failed investment, that's just how business works around here...

There's no obligation for anyone to participate in this campaign. Again, if someone isn't comfortable with it, he can simply move on. If one is inclined to participate, I'd suggest not investing any more than he can afford to and/or are comfortable risking in consideration of the rather extensive and detailed statements and conditions laid out in the offering.

If you read my original post, I agreed with another member on the how the recent post by DCA can set a precedent that affects members who are not as well educated financially, and not in a positive way...

I don't see how this post by Dan Clark Audio "affects members who are not as well educated financially, and not in a positive way." Read the offering, and if you're not comfortable with it, move on. If there are things in the offering you can't understand, and haven't been able to have answered to your satisfaction, move on. If you're interested, and you decide to move on, then it's cost you only the time spent on whatever due diligence you did that led you to that decision. If you're simply not interested and decided that straight away, then it didn't even cost you that.

...While my comment appears to be overly pessimistic, I am certain that some terms and agreements are "bended" to appease sponsors. This is not uncommon. Business is business...

Read the rules/terms of use. Again, sponsors are given more latitude when posting, and that's spelled out there, and has been for 18+ years. That doesn't mean they're not criticized (again, read this thread as a quick example -- and, again, browse the forums and you'll find countless more examples with great ease). It also doesn't mean that non-sponsor products are not constantly reviewed in the forums and not featured regularly, because they most certainly are.

...And what, have our private conversation be left private?...

Not that you'd necessarily wait for my permission to share it, but if you PM me, I usually respond with the assumption that the message I'm sending might be shared on Head-Fi and/or elsewhere.

...I have already seen a number of inconsistencies with this site (i.e. NCM thread being removed for "reasons" that don't invalidate the terms and agreements on this site) that does not inspire confidence on how some of the admins run this site. At least they got NCM's thread back on, but how they process such actions doesn't shed good light as far as I'm concerned...

I'm not sure what inconsistencies you're referring to, but feel free to PM me about it. As for that thread you mentioned, I agreed with all but a few of the deletions that were made in that thread, and I detailed that in this post.

...Admins can delete my comment if they find this inaccurate, "improper", or goes against head-fi's terms and agreements.

While your post isn't being deleted (which would be strange since I've quoted most of your last two posts in this post), I will not continue the off-topic parts of this conversation in this thread. If you have off-topic questions or comments and/or wish to simply continue the off-topic parts of this conversation, feel free to PM me. Again, I'll assume any PM response(s) from me might be shared by you on Head-Fi and/or elsewhere.

 

[ChoColostrum]

Well this has been quite escalating for a while now. And I'm here saying nonsense but maybe everyone should just respect each other's point of view. This hobby/field or whatever you think of is not for children. To be more straightforward with my statement, this is sort of an aquired taste so it is safe to assume everyone here is responsible enough for their expenses. If they want to invest or not, let them be. This whole audiophile thing is subjective to begin with anyway.

Peace.

 

[descloud]

After several failed crowdfunding campaigns (several of which I also personally paid into and didn't receive products), we no longer allow crowdfunding campaigns by companies who were not established and selling (and delivering) products prior to a proposed crowdfunding ad campaign. Since instituting this policy, we've turned down many ad campaigns from those who wished to start their companies by crowdfunding their first products.

For the record, not once was the original post talking about "startups crowdfunding".

I don't see how this post by Dan Clark Audio "affects members who are not as well educated financially, and not in a positive way."

I'll put it simply, this can be an exploitive opportunity for others who can't comprehend the intricacies of how stocks work or to what extent the terms and agreements they read applies.

Would a man who can't read be willing to invest in a product or service if the marketer says to them that there's "no downside, and you have everything to gain, you just have to sign this paper"? Likely they will. They don't know better. This is appeal to ignorance.

This is just an example, but it applies to people who are in a more vulnerable position and can't comprehend such legal documents and business operations. Setting this type of precedent for other companies moving forward is something that I don't support.

Run by sponsors? If you mean that sponsors have more latitude to promote in the forums, that's true, and has been that way since pretty much the site's beginnings back in 2001, spelled out in the rules/terms of use.

Good that you can read between the lines.

If you're suggesting that we don't allow posts criticizing sponsors and/or their products, then I suggest you actually browse the forums more closely -- and you might start by reading this very thread -- and you'll see that's definitely not true.

That's not what I was suggesting, and this is a whole different issue you're trying to raise that I have my own concerns for. But this is not the topic of conversation so let's leave it at that.

As is obvious in this thread, there are mixed opinions about this campaign, but those who are not comfortable with it can simply move on.

There's no obligation for anyone to participate in this campaign. Again, if someone isn't comfortable with it, he can simply move on. If one is inclined to participate, I'd suggest not investing any more than he can afford to and/or are comfortable risking in consideration of the rather extensive and detailed statements and conditions laid out in the offering.

Read the offering, and if you're not comfortable with it, move on. If there are things in the offering you can't understand, and haven't been able to have answered to your satisfaction, move on. If you're interested, and you decide to move on, then it's cost you only the time spent on whatever due diligence you did that led you to that decision. If you're simply not interested and decided that straight away, then it didn't even cost you that.

This is the type of cold shoulder I don't support - hence my comment. You and a lot of others here shrug off this type of concern by giving the sanctimonious response of "if you don't agree with it, move on".

While I and a good number of people here are capable of comprehending the terms of the investment and fully capable of making our own financial decision, there are also a number of people who can't. That's my problem with it. That's where it can be exploitive, especially if more companies start doing the same moving forward. It's setting a precedent for it.

That's my opinion on the matter. Feel free to disagree. This is not to imply or state that DCA doing this type of business action was wrong. If that's what you get from this, you're not getting the point.

 

[chesebert]

@jude we are all trying to keep you and Headfi out of trouble. I hope you get what I am saying. If not, go talk to a professional.

Disclaimer: I am not offering financial or legal advice but only my personal opinion. Investors may take further aspects and their own due diligence into consideration before making a decision.

 

[jude]

@jude...Disclaimer: I am not offering financial or legal advice...

Then don't.

 

[jude]

...This is the type of cold shoulder I don't support - hence my comment. You and a lot of others here shrug off this type of concern by giving the sanctimonious response of "if you don't agree with it, move on".

While I and a good number of people here are capable of comprehending the terms of the investment and fully capable of making our own financial decision, there are also a number of people who can't. That's my problem with it. That's where it can be exploitive, especially if more companies start doing the same moving forward. It's setting a precedent for it.

That's my opinion on the matter. Feel free to disagree. This is not to imply or state that DCA doing this type of business action was wrong. If that's what you get from this, you're not getting the point.

I get your point, but I don't agree. Again, if one doesn't understand or feel comfortable with the disclosures and terms, he can choose not to participate. As you can see from the discussion, there's really no unanimity here, with many different opinions being offered -- there's no hypnotic suggestion going on here.

 

[Law87]

I get your point, but I don't agree. Again, if one doesn't understand or feel comfortable with the disclosures and terms, he can choose not to participate. As you can see from the discussion, there's really no unanimity here -- many different opinions are being offered, so there's no hypnotic suggestion going on here.

Then what you are saying is there is absolutely no regulatory in this forum and people should post whatever they want. The integrity of the forum and it users should be thrown out the door. If thats the case then it should make it known. If the company want to make an IPO of some sort, an announcement should be made to visit their website, or better yet go to stockaholics.net and make their advertisement there. Since when does a hobby intertwine with business deal.

 

[jude]

Then what you are saying is there is absolutely no regulatory in this forum and people should post whatever they want. The integrity of the forum and it users should be thrown out the door. If thats the case then it should make it known. If the company want to make an IPO of some sort, an announcement should be made to visit their website, or better yet go to stockaholics.net and make their advertisement there...

If you read the post that started the thread, it's essentially an announcement and a link by Dan Clark Audio. As stated in that post:

...We [Dan Clark Audio] can't answer any questions about the terms of the offer except on the offer page to comply with SEC rules, you can ask questions like that on the site but we can't answer them here.

To participate, you must go through StartEngine, where the offering and all its required documentation and terms can be found.

...Since when does a hobby intertwine with business deal.

Because businesses are an inextricable part of this hobby, they intertwine all the time. Again, though, this is the first arrangement of this specific type that I know of in our industry.

 

[Sandifop]

Time distills a great Bourbon; it’s pretty good on opinions, also.

I‘m cool on StartEngine, but not cool on 3.5% fees. Invest if you want, don’t if you don’t.

For me? I’ve got a couple of Franklins here that I *might* invest. It would be more if it wasn’t for that 3.5%.

I hope we can all drop the ownership on our opinions long enough to enjoy the music.

PS-out