Same stress you go through at time with assisted coding like the same way you would feel working with incompetent engineer.
Agi is far away in general any serious work is just step function of
human judgement.
Dave is right - USVC yet another grift in the world of retail-accessible VC. I went through the 56-page prospectus and its even worse than the tweet suggests:
1. Fee stack: 3.61% gross annual expense ratio, capped net at 2.50%. Underlying SPVs/VC funds charge another 1–2.5% mgmt + 20–30% carry on top. You're paying 3+ layers of fees before any return hits your account.
2. The prospectus states twice, verbatim: "The Investment Adviser has no previous experience managing a closed-end, registered investment company." The adviser was formed Dec 2023 and rebranded from "Strawberry Tree Management" to "AngelList Asset Management" last November.
3. Portfolio manager Ankur Nagpal is compensated on AUM growth, not performance. Straight from the prospectus: his Carry acquisition earnout "includes contingent payments tied to USVC's growth in assets under management." Textbook non-traded REIT incentive structure.
4. AngelList gets paid three times on the same dollar:
• 1% advisory fee to AngelList Asset Management
• Up to 5% of profits to Platform Advisor LLC (AngelList affiliate)
• Fund admin fees to Belltower Fund Group (AngelList affiliate)
5. NAV is sponsor-marked - the adviser is its own "valuation designee." Prospectus disclaimer: "Fair value prices are necessarily subjective in nature…no assurance that such a price will be at or close to the price at which the security is next quoted or next trades."
6. "5% quarterly redemptions" is marketing. Reality: Board can cancel any offer, can offer less than 5%, can repurchase at a discount to NAV, and oversubscribed offers prorate. Straight from the doc: "Shareholders should not rely on being able to tender the full amount—or any—of their Shares."
7. Naval frames it as "VC for everyone." The prospectus describes a non-traded CEF with sponsor-marked NAV, AUM-linked manager comp, three layers of affiliate fees, and gated discretionary liquidity.
Retail doesn't need access to private markets this badly.
Open source is dead.
That’s not a statement we ever thought we’d make.
@calcom was built on open source. It shaped our product, our community, and our growth. But the world has changed faster than our principles could keep up.
AI has fundamentally altered the security landscape. What once required time, expertise, and intent can now be automated at scale. Code is no longer just read. It is scanned, mapped, and exploited. Near zero cost.
In that world, transparency becomes exposure. Especially at scale.
After a lot of deliberation, we’ve made the decision to close the core @calcom codebase.
This is not a rejection of what open source gave us. It’s a response to what risks AI is making possible.
We’re still supporting builders, releasing the core code under a new MIT-licensed open source project called cal. diy for hobbyists and tinkerers, but our priority now is simple:
Protecting our customers and community at all costs.
This may not be the most popular call.
But we believe many companies will come to the same conclusion.
My full explanation below ↓
We scroll. We read a birthday wish from a leader's profile.
"Waah, kya likha hai!"
Sir, a babu wrote that at 9 AM on a Monday.
We've replaced authenticity with managed accounts and call it connection.
The bot is performing. We're applauding.