I think it's a good summary of the tone and generalities that the journalist likely heard from the investors he spoke with. Does it sound ridiculous? Yeah. Pro

I think it's a good summary of the tone and generalities that the journalist likely heard from the investors he spoke with. Does it sound ridiculous? Yeah. Professional investors complain about people whose only qualification to invest is their bank account. They do realize they are investors right? Well a dollar is a dollar, it doesn't have a brand. The scary thing to professional investors isn't dumb money and large valuations per se. It's the competition that gets the best deals just because it offers more money. How ironic. To take a more nuanced opinion, I don't think the distinct is between dumb and smart money, but between branded and unbranded money. There is in fact somewhat of a "brand" for a dollar. If A16Z invests in you, their dollars have some built-in, unwritten-but-real future bonus in the professional VC circus that will pile onto your next deal. Some nobody can offer the same deal on paper today as A16Z, but it won't guarantee that brand-name pile on in a later investment. The question is, how often does the A16Z actually pay off in that future-bonus way, or how many VC firms actually provide a meaningful bonus in that way? If the "Emirati home office" just offers more money up front, the branded dollar's future brand bonus is less valuable in comparison. This helps explain a firm like A16Z's increasingly generous (and preposterous) first investments. Increasing competition, not "dumb money," has negated a valuable competitive advantage American VC firms once had.