It's not bad per se, it's just how it works. Like pretty much everything in life the outcome is dependent on the people involved. You're not getting the potential for more upside without the introduction of more risk.
Chamath is currently leading four biotech SPACS: DNAA, DNAB, DNAC and DNAD, each with a stated target, neurology, oncology, organs & immunology. Anyone looking to invest in the SPAC today should consider the likelihood of this happening, the potential targets, and the sponsors history.
Or you can wait for an announcement around a proposed merger, even up to the day the official stock starts being traded.
Again, just depends on risk tolerance. It's nice to least have the option to take part in these deals.
For the most part, the government shouldn't get to tell people what they can or can not do with their money. We don't currently stop people from going to vegas, buying lotto tickets, buying expensive cars, clothes, buying education, etc.
Said another way, 'anyone' can invest 'any' amount in a public stock today and lose it all tomorrow. Heck people were even suckered into mortgages they couldn't afford by our trusty banks.
Funny enough I've been obsessing over this concept of "aligning vectors" / measuring the impact of personal KPIs against the total progress of a business.
“Every person in your company is a vector. Your progress is determined by the sum of all vectors.” — Elon Musk
Certainly important for people to understand/be aware of the process someone such as Robert Moir (one scientist mentioned in the article) must navigate
options:
1. start over and don't work with the current cofounder.
2. keep going with current product, structure co-founders financial contribution as an investment (use a SAFE or something) and remove the person from day to day operations in the company.