4 ms·
Exactly, the post reads as investor-class propaganda. At the moment, the only logical explanation I can think of for posting such a piece is that you wish to r
by jsprogrammer 11y ago
Exactly, the post reads as investor-class propaganda.
At the moment, the only logical explanation I can think of for posting such a piece is that you wish to reduce competition for equity by limiting the number of participants in the market. If you can limit the supply of cash, those with the cash can make many demands on those without. tptacek advocates for a limited supply of cash, carefully metered out by the cash-class, so as to preserve their position at the spigot (don't forget, those at the spigot get to take 'their' dividends/interest-payments/management-fees/transaction-fees/what-have-yous out of the stream; before anyone else even gets to see them).
- tptacek 11y agoI don't invest in startups; I work for them, and plowing the proceeds of that work back into startups (or any other tech company) seems like bad diversification to me. So no, I don't have an ulterior motive.
- jsprogrammer 11y ago>I don't invest in startups; I work for them OK >plowing the proceeds of that work back into startups So, you receive only cash for your work? No equity? > seems like bad diversification to me Ok, so you are invested in startups or tech companies then (if not, what are you diversifying from)? [Note: we have now contradicted claim 1] >So no, I don't have an ulterior motive. Maybe. I'm still not convinced that you aren't an investor though. >Retail investors should get exposure to [x] through carefully managed funds that own lots of [xs], not by trying to pick individual winners themselves. Said every fund manager ever [who, note, try to pick individual (for some definition) winners].