max@maxmore.com (Max More) writes:
>Mike suggested Zyvex, but they aren't public yet. It's easy to find
>companies doing work in MEMS and very limited forms of nano (nanofluids
>seems to be taking off right now), but not in Drexlerian nanotech. IBM is
I am involved in a nanotech startup whose goals are about as Drexlerian
as Zyvex's. We're not seeking much publicity yet.
We are currently seeking funding from VCs. Small investors should not
expect to be welcome - the SEC seems to be rather effective at "protecting"
them from risky investments, and the legal system also creates costs which
make small investors less attractive to privately held companies.
The Foresight Institute has talked about someone setting up some sort of
fund to allow small investors to invest in nanotech. It's unclear to me
whether anyone is actively working on it. It may well have been abandoned
due to inadequate interest.
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Peter McCluskey | Fed up with democracy's problems? Examine Futarchy: http://www.rahul.net/pcm | http://hanson.gmu.edu/futarchy.pdf or .ps
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:48 MDT