Let’s not even get started with Sama pushing Worldcoin, a pretty exploitative attempt at getting everyone’s irises with a pre-mined currency supposed to revolutionize world finance.
The VC drive to jump into the crypto world was startling to me. People hold varying opinions on various crypto products, but so many of the ones getting investment are making claims that should gather extreme scrutiny from a crowd that should be familiar with finance and returns. "We expect 10%+ returns for a long time"? Folks investing in companies instead of banks should know firsthand that guaranteed market-beating returns are almost definitionally suspect!
Even if you think it's not fraudulent on the part of the founders, the industry is frothy and unproven and fraud-adjacent enough that investing in many companies in the space should appear to be a huge potential reputational risk beyond just losing some invested money. The people putting up the cash should be looking long and hard at this whole story.
And then once you get into the details, the moment you hear about one of the use cases for defi lending leading to these high interest rates being "put up crypto collateral to borrow to buy even more crypto since it's appreciating rapidly"... run!
> VC doesn’t want to get out early #386. What drives their decisions is far more complex than your pithy summary.
Ah, yes, VC's decision making process is too great for us mere mortals to understand. Their motivation and calculus are beyond our ken. Woe to the uninformed laypeople who cannot fathom their singular desire for money and influence. The nuances of 'make more money' justify the great wealth which their discerning judgement deserves. As if a simple understanding of finance and deal making under advisement in most cases and a larger capacity for risk due to having excess wealth makes them any better than the rest of us humans.
You original comment was low quality, and now you are doubling down by being rude. I definitely think your reply breaks site guidelines. I suggest you read the section below the heading Comments https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I admit my second comment wasn’t much better, sorry.
VCs want to hold on to their successful investments as long as possible, with some limitations depending on the contracts for when LPs expect their money back. VCs obviously do not sellout their successful investment(s) as early as they could, usually they are buying into it and doubling down instead.
In some situations a VC might push to sell early: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/drive-bydeal.asp In others, they won’t, as is mentioned in that article. Perhaps if there is a good IRR they might wish to delay marking to market for as long as possible, so they can tell a story on their existing funds based on numbers that are not realistic? It really depends on the particular fund, the VC, the current market, and the specifics of each investment.
> Your original comment was low quality, and now you are doubling down by being rude.
I was not the original commenter with whom you were speaking. I'll admit that my comment could be rude, and for that I'm sorry. The length of the mockery was a bit much, but I don't think it was uncalled for. To assume that venture capital exists without the primary motivation and purpose of making money is misleading at best and delusional more generally. Tangential motivations such as investing for impact or being motivated by other considerations don't change the underlying goal and assumption of the act of venture capital.
> I admit my second comment wasn’t much better, sorry.
Placing venture capitalists within some special class whose reasoning or motivations are beyond the understanding of most people is where I take umbrage. Yes, there are considerations such as the underlying technology, exit strategy and timing, rounds of investing, and risk assumption. The vast majority of the time venture capital is performed under advisement of attorneys, accountants, and consiltants. Venture capitalists perform no special function beyond writing the check, transferring the money, and rarely coaching or dealmaking with founders. However the chief expectation is outsized returns for above average risk in a least a few of the ventures to make up for all of the startups that failed. If the aim was social good, there are very many worthy causes and charities that need that capital. 'Stablegains' is not and was not a charity working for the collective good of society and neither are an alarming number of startups and YC-backed startups these days.
Your “replies” are not engaging, and it feels like you are mocking me with strawman shit I never said. That is very unpleasant, and nobody likes that. You have read an awful lot into sentences where I am just trying to be factual.
You have no idea what I think about VCs morally, so why are you responding with moral points?
For example: “To assume that venture capital exists without the primary motivation and purpose of making money is misleading at best and delusional more generally”. Who are you arguing against? Who assumes what? And “delusional” is an unpleasant flamebait word.
>> I admit my second comment wasn’t much better, sorry.
> Placing venture capitalists within some special class whose reasoning or motivations are beyond the understanding of most people is where I take umbrage
I mean, where is your reply even connected to what you quoted? Are you just baiting?
The quality of your two comments is extremely low in my opinion. Please, reread the guidelines (I do regularly), and try and learn to follow the unwritten standards the community follows.
