hi mmbg,
maybe so. i don't know if your inference of unethical or illegal funding activity was ever substantiated. there are things people don't like about the conversations and actions surrounding wave's fundraising. but what is the legal authority for anyone's objection? i get the impression that some people sought to take advantage of shortcomings in the rules to benefit (or reduce the cost to) themselves of wave's dilution. isn't that what the stock market enables? if some people found a way to avoid the downside risk, or even to make a return on wave's stock (perhaps by shorting it), and they avoided illegal activity, well done to them.
generally, i don't quite buy into the notion of naive investors being taken advantage of. better information was available. people chose to ignore it because they preferred to stick with their hopes. hooking yourself up to message board heroes turns out to be a poor decision. maybe people learnt a lesson. but i doubt it. there wasn't a huge following for reasoned and/or objective scepticism. it isn't a sexy line of commentary.
nor am i a purchaser of the notion that wave cynics particularly care about the wrongs done to the losers. to me, the cynics mostly want to expiate their anger at feeling previously rejected, and to sustain their appraisal of the glory of being right about the outcome. crocodile tears.
for me, investors aren't the story. wave's history is just a sad tale of a company that tried and failed. it was fairly obvious that the harbour was unsafe. the crack pipe was suffused with dreamy fantasies. so read the financial statements. and if you didn't, you can only blame yourself.
