| ▲ | kibwen 3 hours ago |
| > Can anyone explain why on earth VC's are making actual investment decisions based on imaginary internet points? The answer is right there in front of your face. Say it with me: VCs are morons. VCs are morons. VCs are morons. Just because someone is rich, you think that means they have any clue what they're doing? |
|
| ▲ | jordanb 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Listening to All In is a real eye opening experience. Especially when they have guests on and they're exactly like the regulars. |
| |
| ▲ | bix6 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I have zero respect for All In. It’s a shame people pay those guys any mind. | |
| ▲ | next_xibalba an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I actually think this take is wrong... but the moment Travis Kalanick was a guest and claimed that he was on the verge of discovering new physics with the aid of ChatGPT was an eye opening moment. | |
| ▲ | 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
| ▲ | nipponese an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| this is compounded by young, newly rich tech workers (no kids, no mortgage, maybe not even a car) experimenting with being a VC because they've recently reached accredited investor status. and it's not just ZIRP. every recent IPO or liquidity event creates literally 500 more of these guys. |
| |
| ▲ | adamkf an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > maybe not even a car Hold up — one can be mature without any of those things, but cars are especially optional. | |
| ▲ | LargeWu an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | They say Silicon Valley was more of a documentary than a comedy, and now we have one more way life imitates art: A growing army of Erlich Bachmann's. |
|
|
| ▲ | georgeecollins 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| true, but the way I would frame it is we are all morons in someone else's eyes. No one is as smart as they think they are. The mistake Americans make is thinking that rich people are so smart that everything they do is smart. |
| |
| ▲ | zerkten an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | I don't think this is always true, but it's true a lot. I think there are better descriptions than moronic as well. People use moronic when people are just as smart but have a different (and possibly better) direction. It's just the case that it defies the will of the other person. These people go to the extreme and feel they have to outdo each other in an arms race to win whatever category it is today. You can have extreme ambitions without being a moron. It's possible for someone to be empathetic, but also really driven. The problem is that they are locked in a downward spiral and they can't possibly be vulnerable. It's only when they run out of money, or some other extreme event occurs that they change tack. That's moronic, especially when the outcomes are predictable. There is a lot to be said about SV culture and the people that surround these VCs. A lot of people love these environments and more than tolerate the environment these VC folks create. It's hardly a new phenomenon. | |
| ▲ | kibwen 37 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yes, but while we're all born stupid, rich people are subject to forces that actually make them dumber than the average person. Normally people learn from failure because they experience tangible negative consequences as a result of failure. But money is a better insulator than a vacuum, and once you're sufficiently wealthy, failure no longer has any tangible negative effect on your quality of life. Lose ten billion dollars? Lose 90% of your net worth? You and your kin will still be living lives of ease and luxury for generations to come. They're destined to be morons because there's no pressure forcing them to learn from their mistakes. |
|
|
| ▲ | twic 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| VCs are, traditionally, people who made a lot of money in a lottery and think that makes them experts. It's virtually guaranteed they're idiots. |
|
| ▲ | mghackerlady 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| hey shhh the ycomb gods might hear us |
| |
|
| ▲ | cmrdporcupine 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| The answer isn't that they're morons. It's that they aren't people who "invest" in "good businesses" to make money, but instead on the whole a class of individuals classed with gambling on high risk ventures that will have absolutely massive returns and they don't care if 90% of them fail and 9% flounder because the 1% that succeed bring in absolutely apeshit amounts of $$ when they are acquired by someone else. Using things like github stars is clearly stupid, but not in the way you're suggesting. They're using the GH stars as a proxy metric for "someone else will come along and give money bags to this person later, so I should get in early so I can take that money eventually." They're operating on metric of success which is about influence and charisma and connectedness, not revenue or technical excellence. Again, VCs don't care if you'll make a profitable business some day. They're just interested in if someone else will come along and pay out giant bags of cash for it later in a liquidity event. If they get even one of those successes, all the stupid GH star watching pays off. Here's another way of framing it: any harms from the false positives around "He has a lot of GH stars" or "He went to Stanford" or "I know his father at the country club" are more than mitigated by the one exit in 1000 that makes a bunch of people filthy rich. We shouldn't expect VCs to be something they're not. But we are missing something inbetween VCs and "self financing" and "bootstrapping" |
| |
| ▲ | palmotea an hour ago | parent [-] | | > Again, VCs don't care if you'll make a profitable business some day. They're just interested in if someone else will come along and pay out giant bags of cash for it later in a liquidity event. If they get even one of those successes, all the stupid GH star watching pays off. And if that's true, they should be slapped, hard. They're no longer performing a socially useful function, and and have degraded towards pure financialization. Some middleman between fools and their money. As much as I don't like Altman, VC should be pumping money into startups like Helios--companies pursuing cutting-edge technology that could totally fail (yes, that's an organic em-dash). | | |
| ▲ | cmrdporcupine an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | I don't think there's ever been an argument that anybody in a free market capitalist economy has to perform a "socially useful function"? I do think that ZiRP distorted things extremely badly. There's an entire generation in this software industry that lives around the business-culture expectations set during that time which as far as I could see basically amounted to "I build Uber but for X" (where X is some new business domain). Perhaps after a bit of a painful interregnum things will be a bit different now that rates are higher and risk along with it. Also anybody can throw a SaaS together in a few days now. Separating the wheat from the chaff in the next few years will be... interesting. | | |
| ▲ | palmotea an hour ago | parent [-] | | > I don't think there's ever been an argument that anybody in a free market capitalist economy has to perform a "socially useful function"? That's a extremely strong statement, and may only be true in libertarian-land, where pure capitalism is a god to be worshiped and "good" has been redefined to be "whatever the unregulated free market does." But in the real world, capitalism is a tool to perform socially useful functions (see the marketing about how it was better able to do that than Soviet central planning). When it fails, it should be patched by regulation (and often is) to push participants into socially useful actions, or at least discourage socially harmful ones. | | |
| ▲ | cmrdporcupine an hour ago | parent [-] | | How is it strong or controversial? It's the open ideology of the times. I didn't say I agree with it. | | |
| ▲ | palmotea an hour ago | parent [-] | | > How is it strong or controversial? It's the open ideology of the times. You said: >>>> I don't think there's ever been an argument that anybody... I just made a such an argument, and the fact that I'm not alone can be inferred from the actions of the government in regulating capitalism. Also, if you read the newspaper, it's fairly frequent to see an op-ed decrying some particular market entity, and advocating for something to stop what they're doing. Also you'll note I wasn't arguing "everyone at all times needs to perform a socially-useful function," but rather "we've identified a particular important area where the social utility is too low, lets do something about that problem." |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | biker142541 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | “no longer”… lol |
|
|