Regulation A is often described as a “mini-IPO”—a way for private companies to raise capital from the public without fully registering under the Securities Act. In theory, it offers a compelling middle ground: broader investor access than a private placement, with fewer burdens than a traditional IPO. In practice, Regulation A plays a very small role in U.S. capital formation, particularly when compared to Regulation D. Understanding why requires looking at both the structure of Regulation A and the actual
For most U.S. startups and growth-stage companies, Regulation D remains the default mechanism for raising private capital. It is fast, familiar, and efficient, particularly where accredited investors are available. Regulation Crowdfunding (“Reg CF”), by contrast, was designed to democratize access to capital by allowing companies to raise money from non-accredited investors through SEC-registered online platforms. While Reg CF has expanded who can participate in private markets, the data shows it continues to represent a very small share of overall capital
Simple Agreements for Future Equity (“SAFEs”) have become the dominant early-stage financing instrument for startups. They are quick to implement, founder-friendly, and avoid early valuation negotiations. Despite their ubiquity, SAFEs raise a persistent and unresolved tax question: Do SAFEs constitute “equity” for Qualified Small Business Stock (“QSBS”) purposes before they convert into stock?
One of the most common misconceptions among fintech founders is that there is a single regulator—or even a single regulatory framework—that applies to their business. In reality, FinTech in the United States is regulated by a patchwork of federal agencies, state regulators, and self-regulatory regimes, with oversight determined less by what you call your product and more by what it actually does—particularly how money, data, and risk move through your platform. Understanding this regulatory landscape early is critical to launching,
FinTech innovation is no longer on the regulatory fringe. The SEC’s FY 2026 Examination Priorities make clear that emerging financial technology—especially platforms using automation, AI, or handling customer funds—is now a core focus of regulatory scrutiny. Regulators care less about how products are branded and more about how money actually moves, who controls it, and how automated systems influence outcomes.
Think your fintech is “just software”? If your platform moves or holds money, you could be operating in regulated territory. This guide explains when money transmitter licenses are required—and how to avoid costly enforcement issues before launch.
Majority ownership doesn’t guarantee control. VCs use negative covenants, board seats, and super-voting shares to quietly steer your startup. Discover how to safeguard your influence with Faison Law Group’s expert legal guidance.
Fake VCs waste founders’ time, erode confidence, and risk leaking sensitive information. Learn how to spot investor red flags, ask the right questions, and protect your startup with due diligence. Faison Law Group offers legal expertise to keep your fundraising focused and effective.
Non-dilutable equity may seem appealing, but it can damage your cap table, scare off investors, and cost you control. Discover safer alternatives and how Faison Law Group helps founders negotiate growth-friendly deal terms.
