Jump to content
Double Fine Action Forums
Sign in to follow this  
KestrelPi

Some misconceptions about the campaign I've heard

Recommended Posts

Something I've been trying to get a handle on for this video script is exactly what sort of stocks fig is issuing, and whe answer I think reveals a lot about what the Schaters and fig... figgie piggies? seem to be missing about the business model.

Justin points out the stocks being issued are 'tracking' stocks, and they are different from regular stocks in a few key ways. I've done a little research and I think this is the key piece of the puzzle people are missing:

Tracking stock or targeted stock are specialized equity offerings issued by a company that is based on the operations of a wholly owned subsidiary of a diversified firm. Therefore, the tracking stock will be traded at a price related to the operations of the specific division of the company being "tracked". Tracking stock typically has limited or no voting rights. Often, the reason for doing so is to separate a high-growth division from a larger parent company. The parent company and its shareholders remain in control of the subsidiary's or unit's operations.

So this makes total sense for a business like Fig. Among other things, it completely explains how stocks whose value on the paperwork is listed at $0.00001 are being traded at $500 - because the price is related the operations of Fig Grasslands, not Fig Investments, and Fig Grasslands is the subsidiary set up specifically to manage the fig portion of the grasslands project, i.e. Psychonauts 2. It also completely justifies the existence of Fig Grasslands and the other divisions that have been accused of being 'shell' companies. No, in this model all the companies perform a specific and necessary function.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Something I've been trying to get a handle on for this video script is exactly what sort of stocks fig is issuing, and whe answer I think reveals a lot about what the Schaters and fig... figgie piggies? seem to be missing about the business model.

Justin points out the stocks being issued are 'tracking' stocks, and they are different from regular stocks in a few key ways. I've done a little research and I think this is the key piece of the puzzle people are missing:

Tracking stock or targeted stock are specialized equity offerings issued by a company that is based on the operations of a wholly owned subsidiary of a diversified firm. Therefore, the tracking stock will be traded at a price related to the operations of the specific division of the company being "tracked". Tracking stock typically has limited or no voting rights. Often, the reason for doing so is to separate a high-growth division from a larger parent company. The parent company and its shareholders remain in control of the subsidiary's or unit's operations.

So this makes total sense for a business like Fig. Among other things, it completely explains how stocks whose value on the paperwork is listed at $0.00001 are being traded at $500 - because the price is related the operations of Fig Grasslands, not Fig Investments, and Fig Grasslands is the subsidiary set up specifically to manage the fig portion of the grasslands project, i.e. Psychonauts 2. It also completely justifies the existence of Fig Grasslands and the other divisions that have been accused of being 'shell' companies. No, in this model all the companies perform a specific and necessary function.

So my account finally got approved so - yes I'm the TechRaptor writer so if you have questions on that piece do ask me.

Now on this here - they are offering preferred tracking stock there of FIG and they are ideally going to track along with the game. There is a chance it might get distorted but they appear to want to avoid that.

I think a lot of the confusion is people hear stocks and all the talk of Equity Crowdfunding and think that is what is going on. That is emphatically not what is being done here - instead the tracking stock ideally will track the result of a specific pub sub and pay out based on that publishing subsidiaries sales. Part of that is the talk of the Title 3 that has been making up a lot of the talk there on this - which has limits and less disclosure requirements but some other things it requires if the rules get approved early this year. FIG is using the lesser known and somewhat more expensive and more disclosure requiring Title A which lets them raise more money but is why all those documents are out and about for people. Some of the misconceptions there are about that, and also about the context of investment documents as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Something I've been trying to get a handle on for this video script is exactly what sort of stocks fig is issuing, and whe answer I think reveals a lot about what the Schaters and fig... figgie piggies? seem to be missing about the business model.

Justin points out the stocks being issued are 'tracking' stocks, and they are different from regular stocks in a few key ways. I've done a little research and I think this is the key piece of the puzzle people are missing:

Tracking stock or targeted stock are specialized equity offerings issued by a company that is based on the operations of a wholly owned subsidiary of a diversified firm. Therefore, the tracking stock will be traded at a price related to the operations of the specific division of the company being "tracked". Tracking stock typically has limited or no voting rights. Often, the reason for doing so is to separate a high-growth division from a larger parent company. The parent company and its shareholders remain in control of the subsidiary's or unit's operations.

So this makes total sense for a business like Fig. Among other things, it completely explains how stocks whose value on the paperwork is listed at $0.00001 are being traded at $500 - because the price is related the operations of Fig Grasslands, not Fig Investments, and Fig Grasslands is the subsidiary set up specifically to manage the fig portion of the grasslands project, i.e. Psychonauts 2. It also completely justifies the existence of Fig Grasslands and the other divisions that have been accused of being 'shell' companies. No, in this model all the companies perform a specific and necessary function.

So my account finally got approved so - yes I'm the TechRaptor writer so if you have questions on that piece do ask me.

Now on this here - they are offering preferred tracking stock there of FIG and they are ideally going to track along with the game. There is a chance it might get distorted but they appear to want to avoid that.

I think a lot of the confusion is people hear stocks and all the talk of Equity Crowdfunding and think that is what is going on. That is emphatically not what is being done here - instead the tracking stock ideally will track the result of a specific pub sub and pay out based on that publishing subsidiaries sales. Part of that is the talk of the Title 3 that has been making up a lot of the talk there on this - which has limits and less disclosure requirements but some other things it requires if the rules get approved early this year. FIG is using the lesser known and somewhat more expensive and more disclosure requiring Title A which lets them raise more money but is why all those documents are out and about for people. Some of the misconceptions there are about that, and also about the context of investment documents as well.

Hullo. Welcome to the forum! I hope you didn't mind some of our questioning - as I said, it's definitely one of the more balanced articles we've seen. There's a bit of a tendency to be defensive about DF here, because of the sheer volume of misinformation we see getting spread uncritically around DF - it can be pretty frustrating and I know DF staff appreciate it when we can set stuff right on their behalf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Something I've been trying to get a handle on for this video script is exactly what sort of stocks fig is issuing, and whe answer I think reveals a lot about what the Schaters and fig... figgie piggies? seem to be missing about the business model.

Justin points out the stocks being issued are 'tracking' stocks, and they are different from regular stocks in a few key ways. I've done a little research and I think this is the key piece of the puzzle people are missing:

Tracking stock or targeted stock are specialized equity offerings issued by a company that is based on the operations of a wholly owned subsidiary of a diversified firm. Therefore, the tracking stock will be traded at a price related to the operations of the specific division of the company being "tracked". Tracking stock typically has limited or no voting rights. Often, the reason for doing so is to separate a high-growth division from a larger parent company. The parent company and its shareholders remain in control of the subsidiary's or unit's operations.

So this makes total sense for a business like Fig. Among other things, it completely explains how stocks whose value on the paperwork is listed at $0.00001 are being traded at $500 - because the price is related the operations of Fig Grasslands, not Fig Investments, and Fig Grasslands is the subsidiary set up specifically to manage the fig portion of the grasslands project, i.e. Psychonauts 2. It also completely justifies the existence of Fig Grasslands and the other divisions that have been accused of being 'shell' companies. No, in this model all the companies perform a specific and necessary function.

So my account finally got approved so - yes I'm the TechRaptor writer so if you have questions on that piece do ask me.

Now on this here - they are offering preferred tracking stock there of FIG and they are ideally going to track along with the game. There is a chance it might get distorted but they appear to want to avoid that.

I think a lot of the confusion is people hear stocks and all the talk of Equity Crowdfunding and think that is what is going on. That is emphatically not what is being done here - instead the tracking stock ideally will track the result of a specific pub sub and pay out based on that publishing subsidiaries sales. Part of that is the talk of the Title 3 that has been making up a lot of the talk there on this - which has limits and less disclosure requirements but some other things it requires if the rules get approved early this year. FIG is using the lesser known and somewhat more expensive and more disclosure requiring Title A which lets them raise more money but is why all those documents are out and about for people. Some of the misconceptions there are about that, and also about the context of investment documents as well.

Hullo. Welcome to the forum! I hope you didn't mind some of our questioning - as I said, it's definitely one of the more balanced articles we've seen. There's a bit of a tendency to be defensive about DF here, because of the sheer volume of misinformation we see getting spread uncritically around DF - it can be pretty frustrating and I know DF staff appreciate it when we can set stuff right on their behalf.

Not at all - questioning is a good thing in general. I believe promoting discussion is one of the best things that writers can do and so was happy to talk with you there. In the end, I'm pro-think essentially - I want you to think about it and come to your own conclusions on things whether that's agreeing or disagreeing with me.

I think the misinformation comes on this case because Schaffer has angered some people at times, and just that FIG as it's set up if you don't take the time and get professional advice or know the field is really confusing. And taking things without that look and time out of context... well you end up with the Dangerous Analysis video if you have an axe to grind already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@lordofriva - All you need to know about the term "Socially Progressive" is that it means you oppose sexism, racism, homophobia, and all other forms of bigotry. It's a belief that people should only be judged for what they do and their impact on society as whole, rather than for things they have no control over. It's not a political party, it's a core belief that achieving a healthier society (that is inclusive and considerate towards anyone and everyone who will benefit that society) should come before petty self-interests or looking out for "your own kind".

So yes, it IS morally superior to the opposing "side", people who believe that men should have more power than women, whites should have more power than all other races, straights should have more power than anyone in the LBGT spectrum, neurotypicals should have more power than neurodivergents, etc. etc. People who believe that are for all intents and purposes socially regressive, as they're trying to keep society in the past (or push it into the dark ages) but in America (and probably other western countries?) they call themselves things like "conservative" and "men's rights activists / meninist" and "white pride group" and "gamer gate".

I hope that clears things up for you and finally puts this discussion to rest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope that clears things up for you and finally puts this discussion to rest.

I thought it was already at rest. xD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope that clears things up for you and finally puts this discussion to rest.

I thought it was already at rest. xD

i thought so as well.

for peace sake i will not answer his post. I do not think that any sensible discussion is to be had here.

EDIT: to clarify, this forum is not. if anyone want to help me understand this position, or is open to further their hoizon themselve im more than happy to provide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Schaffer has angered some people at times

Welcome to the forums and thanks for publishing an article that not only attempts to rationally look at things, but also cites some legal advice. Top work :D

It's super minor, but I've spotted the two-F "Schaffer" typo in your article as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah in general you can pretty safely disregard stuff said in Kotaku in Action, that place is a bit of a hot mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah in general you can pretty safely disregard stuff said in Kotaku in Action, that place is a bit of a hot mess.

I don't know anything about it, but at a glance, it does appear to be a bit of a cesspit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah in general you can pretty safely disregard stuff said in Kotaku in Action, that place is a bit of a hot mess.

I don't know anything about it, but at a glance, it does appear to be a bit of a cesspit.

well what did you expect.

At some point a state is reached where you can say anything and it will be used against you *shrug*

its not like it harmed the funding of Tims further business in any way significantly.

you will earn critics anyways even more if you are a "prominent" figure, always listen to what may be valid and otherwise /Ignore would be the best approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it's the official subreddit of GamerGate? I thought Reddit stopped allowing subreddits to hate-groups??? (other than PC Master Race. lol j/k)

Two things that immediately caught my eye: their board mascot is a female character; guess they couldn't find any more real women to be their shield so they got a fictional one for the job, ahaha.

And the disclaimer that participating on that board in ANY way (regardless of what you say) automatically bans you from several women's rights / health / support subreddits. Beautiful.

Bonus: article link on the side: "Blame gamergate's bad rep on smears and shoddy journalism". Do they mean they have a bad rep because of the smear campaigns and bad journalism they regularly engage in? Oh, nope, it starts with an intro about how they can't possibly be misogynists because they have some girls in the group (reference image: another drawing of that fictional girl. What?) and then it's just pages of whining about how they're victims and its everyone else's fault that they aren't liked.

At least they've finally admitted that everyone hates them. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dealing with more misinformative videos – is there any kind of breakdown of investments from accredited vs. unaccredited investors out there in the meantime?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dealing with more misinformative videos – is there any kind of breakdown of investments from accredited vs. unaccredited investors out there in the meantime?
Not that I know of, but we know how many investments total, and we also know that they raised the cap on unaccredited investment a bunch of times, so we can probably safely infer that Accredited investments make up significantly less than 500k of the total.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not that I know of, but we know how many investments total, and we also know that they raised the cap on unaccredited investment a bunch of times, so we can probably safely infer that Accredited investments make up significantly less than 500k of the total.

Hmmm. This one guy says that unaccredited investors can't put more than 1 million $ total into such projects, and I'm not even sure that's correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not that I know of, but we know how many investments total, and we also know that they raised the cap on unaccredited investment a bunch of times, so we can probably safely infer that Accredited investments make up significantly less than 500k of the total.

Hmmm. This one guy says that unaccredited investors can't put more than 1 million $ total into such projects, and I'm not even sure that's correct.

It's not correct. It would be correct if Fig were using Title 3 of the jobs Act which places that cap on investments, but fig uses Title 4 / Regulation A of the act which doesn't have such a cap. https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/40i8ej/iama_tim_schafer_creator_of_psychonauts_ask_me/cyuhml6?context=3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a Forbes article on Reg A:

The new rules for Regulation A+ offerings which include non-accredited investors are broken up into two tiers (alternatives) that allow companies to raise up to either $20,000,000 or $50,000,000.

Regulation A+ broadens the definition of “qualified investors” to include non-accredited investors, though there are clear caps on how much they can invest. Non-accredited investors can invest a maximum 10% of their income/net worth per year, protecting these often less experiences investors and making it so that they can’t “lose it all” with a single crowdfunded investment

http://www.forbes.com/sites/chancebarnett/2015/03/26/infographic-sec-democratizes-equity-crowdfunding-with-jobs-act-title-iv/2/#43c6b7927e35

The last part of that, the maximum 10% of income part is explained to potential unaccredited investors on the page where they reserve shares.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw this meme and immediately thought of this thread and that stupid video:

bYjEfpv.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh, that's basically perfect. They eat this stuff up, and then literally have no idea what to do when presented with actual facts. It's a bit sad really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's very true. Hopefully memes like this show the beginning of the same sort of cynicism for what you read on the internet, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, to be fair, that "dangerous analysis" video was actually quite well edited. And if it did affect the Psychonauts 2 campaign, I think it wasn't by too much. Most of the people that believed the video were never going to pledge anyway.

Otherwise, yes. It's always "dangerous" to just believe. Never rely solely on provided proof, because facts can be twisted to support an argument. Context can be hidden or glossed over.

But really, most people should know that. At least those who are inclined to think before acting, anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I do think it's probably a very vocal obsessive minority, at the end of the day. Obsessive being the operative word. There was one guy on the Steam forums who had posted several times a day against DF for MONTHS. The only DF game he owned was Spacebase, and he'd only played it for 3 hours.

Looking back through the threads, he was masterful at disrupting them in such a way that wouldn't get him banned (although it did eventually) but which spun the thread into a negative conversation about DF.

But he did this, every day, several times a day. For months.

On the internet, the argument is won by those who obsess the most... or by a decent moderator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think flagging offensive/off-topic posts works though, which is the most energy-efficient way of dealing with that. Speaking of which, there's one that has been festering in the Double Fine Adventure! forum for months, maybe if y'all flag it it'll get the moderators' attention?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like the misinformation surrounding the campaign hasn't ended yet. Polygon has run an article talking about how even though the campaign was a success, unaccredited investment opportunities are still going through an approval process. This in turn has lead to a post on Gamasutra with the title "Psychonauts 2 investment funds held up by SEC checks".

The content of each article seems fairly reasonable (though none explicitly state that this is all part of what investors were told would happen), but the sensationalist Polygon headline seems to have inspired the inaccurate Gamasutra headline, and is likely to lead to more misinformation as word and assumption spreads.

Looking back through the threads, he was masterful at disrupting them in such a way that wouldn't get him banned (although it did eventually) but which spun the thread into a negative conversation about DF.

But he did this, every day, several times a day. For months.

I don't have moderation access over on the Steam forums, but if it's who I think it is, then it was something that Spaff was keeping a close eye to. It's amazing how people can make being angry about something small become a part of their lifestyle.

I think flagging offensive/off-topic posts works though, which is the most energy-efficient way of dealing with that. Speaking of which, there's one that has been festering in the Double Fine Adventure! forum for months, maybe if y'all flag it it'll get the moderators' attention?

I went looking for this today to see if there was something I could raise for attention, but didn't see any threads that there problematic (a couple making grumbles about not getting Steam keys because they didn't back high enough and some making sure that people knew the series was on youtube, but nothing that seemed significant). Has that already been dealt with?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I went looking for this today to see if there was something I could raise for attention, but didn't see any threads that there problematic (a couple making grumbles about not getting Steam keys because they didn't back high enough and some making sure that people knew the series was on youtube, but nothing that seemed significant). Has that already been dealt with?

Indeed it has, hurray! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...