@mhlakhani@ZaidJilani@VCBrags U.S. Venture capital hasn't been able to outperform European VC for the past 20 years. The Thiel Andreessen generation of VC took one of the greatest engines of economic growth and American ingenuity, and turned it into an old world rent extraction scheme.
https://t.co/quGiFwkrhR
There are 12 venture-backed companies that raised >$3B in private markets and then listed in the US.
Only one that has a positive return today, relative to the S&P 500's performance over the same period.
Most are deeply negative (aggregate -117%).
Only two that were positive at lockup expiry, neither stayed that way.
The high cost of private capital means the companies that raise the most, and stay private longer, are almost inevitably overvalued as insiders raise the price of funding events aggressively to stay NPV positive.
Balaji is a nation state actor. Period. He does not bat for Team USA. This continued platforming of him necessitates increased scrutiny.
There are Dark Forces at play.
Is antitrust enforcement good for "little tech"?
"The results show that VCs significantly reduce investments in startups located in areas less protected by the antitrust division."
"Additional tests show that the lowered antitrust enforcement subsequently leads to a lower likelihood of successful exits and worse innovation outcomes for startups in the affected areas."
"Overall, these results suggest that VCs avoid investing in startups located in areas less protected by the antitrust division, hindering the long-term development of startups in affected areas."
The Effect of Antitrust Enforcement on Venture Capital Investments, by Wentian Zhang
Broadly, the finding of this paper is that antitrust enforcement protects early-stage companies from anti-competitive practices by incumbents.
Stronger anti-trust enforcement is associated with greater levels of investment in early-stage companies, and more positive long-term outcomes in terms of company exits and innovation.
@credenzaclear2 the market calls for me to hostile takeover red lobster to end endless shrimp once and for all. don't tell me i don't care about humanity 😤
@QiaochuYuan@credenzaclear2 Some argue (with good evidence) that extinctionism is a core belief within the worldview, and the people who believe it are quiet about it because they know it looks bad. https://t.co/8RywadZf1Y
I wrote about the philosophical goals of EA/Anthropic here ⬇️
I cannot see how they are compatible with any Abrahamic religion, as the utilitarian calculus diminishes humans quite explicity. It’s the whole point.
(Recall Larry Page telling Musk off being “speciesist”. This is the embarkation point for the utilitarians. ‘Progress Studies’ is the same people, the same money, and the logic, just a bit more aware of the optics)
https://t.co/Gy5bVONDTE
@mattparlmer It's a good idea, it's just that the industry is structured in a way that resists it. A rent extraction machine is going to sputter at the idea of reducing rents.
@credistick@mattparlmer The individuals making the GP selection decision often are not the same people providing the capital, so there is little incentive for the selectors to be price conscious. They desire to be perceived as possessing erudition so they also want to maintain the lie that price=quality
@daveclark85 That's right. LPs use the wrong measures to double up on GPs and also probably do it too soon.
(Also the idea you have to double up on GPs instead of simply cycle through them, is dubious).
BREAKING: California Forever linked donors have funneled thousands into the coffers of the Solano County Deputy Sheriffs’ Association, which is spending big on two Solano County Board of Supervisors Races.
https://t.co/1CeJgByEIG
On one side, you have the VC, with a network.
On the other, the founder, without.
Just to get the attention of the VC, the founder must navigate a network of strangers to find someone who believes in their idea enough to agree to pass it on.
And then they hope the VC, hearing this idea from a second-hand source, also sees the potential.
Who does this nonsense work well for?
It works reasonably well for founders with "obvious" ideas that have some recognisable "pedigree", who are perhaps gifted with charisma.
However, none of these attributes are positively correlated with returns.
They are positively correlated with generating faster markups, so it also works well as a filter for the scaled venture platforms who sell allocation to LPs.
But, for most founders, it's a massive waste of time and a painful distraction to be forced to play this ridiculous ego-driven relationship game.
The first thing any new VC should pledge is to not waste founders' time, because it is infinitely more precious than any VC's time.
The arrogance of making founders jump through hoops for a chance at raising money is insane. Unless you believe your customers are LPs, rather than founders.
I asked if Marc Andreessen was reachable for you. Your answer was that you pitched someone else at a16z and they said no.
Warm intros are bad for venture capital. There’s a host of research on why, but the tl;dr is that relationships are a bad filter for idiosyncrasy.
https://t.co/4TySbzf00Z
@JosephPolitano They hate non-tech people. They don't see them as citizens of the technocracy they want to build. The goal is to create their own nation state on U.S. soil, the ultimate exemption.
@JosephPolitano They hate non-tech people. They don't see them as citizens of the technocracy they want to build. The goal is to create their own nation state on U.S. soil, the ultimate exemption.