> The flaw in your thinking here is that you’re assuming these greedy people that you are creating in your head would prefer to lose half the value of the shares instead of doubling them.

The flaw in your thinking is assuming it's actually worth the IPO price.

If I'm a bullshit artist, $100 is great, $50 is good, and I'm just trying to avoid the $0 scenario.

▲

ericmay 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> The flaw in your thinking is assuming it's actually worth the IPO price.

Then don't buy it at the IPO price? The bullshit artist will have to lower their price until there are takers in the market.

> If I'm a bullshit artist, $100 is great, $50 is good, and I'm just trying to avoid the $0 scenario.

They're not bullshit artists, they're greedy. If you think you're pulling one over on someone $100 is great but $200 is better - might as well see if you can get $200. Since we're just making up random people and motivations.

	▲	ceejayoz an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> Then don't buy it at the IPO price? I think you're getting lost here. If I invested $0.50/share, I know my company is worth realistically $10/share, and I can convince you to buy at $100/share, and it plunges to $50/share before I can offload, I am still a pretty happy camper. Retail investors are the marks, not the scammer here. > They're not bullshit artists, they're greedy. Those aren't mutually exclusive. Musk is both, for instance.