[dantheman]

These types of schemes are not even worth discussing, they're horrible for investors, and if the first venture doesn't work then does the investor buy more of the person? So that their their initial investment isn't lost? At want point does the person having sold 80% of their future earnings just stop working because they don't see it as worthwhile.

[rewind]

Anything is worth discussing if both parties see the benefit. The "not even worth discussing" mentality would have stopped a lot of successful businesses and individuals if that's the attitude they took at the beginning.

[mortenjorck]

I'm not trying to discount you with a strawman here (you make a good point), but I'd take issue with the idea that "anything is worth discussing if both parties see the benefit." Here goes my extreme example: Child prostitution. The child makes money to pay for living expenses, the customer relieves his sexual tension. But no one would argue that, despite the benefits to both parties, the downsides of this arrangement vastly outweigh the benefits.

Again, I'm not trying to make a strawman here comparing this investment scheme to child exploitation. But while this scheme may indeed be north of "not even worth discussing," the idea of "selling off" any part of your life is not something to be taken lightly, which I imagine you'd probably agree with.

[dantheman]

I chose my words poorly, I should have said this has been attempted before and I don't see any difference in this persons plan, except that they seem even less likely than those who proposed this earlier to make a lot of money, and I don't think anything in the world has changed that will make this a workable solution.