4 ms·

I feel better about this now than I did a year ago. Proposition 1 is up about 50% in the first year, and proposition 2 is up about 65%. The main point remains-

by sama 10y ago

I feel better about this now than I did a year ago. Proposition 1 is up about 50% in the first year, and proposition 2 is up about 65%. The main point remains--we spend far too much time talking about whether or not startups are in a bubble. It's boring and it gets in the way. Sometimes it will be true and sometimes it won't, but the stories claiming a huge bubble for the last 10 years have been generally wrong. It was telling to me that, even with the fever pitch of VCs calling for the end of the world last year, only one investor (a TechStars mentor) would take this bet. The goal of this bet was to deflate the bubble conversation, and that seemed somewhat effective.

ebbv 10y ago
Do you think that perhaps there were crickets because the people with the money/position to be able to take the bet have good reason to share your bullish view because they also stand to benefit from you being right? So they have to not only be bearish but be really confident about being bearish to take your bet? I believe we are in a bubble but I'm not a millionaire I'm just a regular developer, so I don't have $100k to gamble. Maybe I should have offered to take your bet at $100 a year ago? :) To be honest, though, even though I believe we are in a bubble I don't feel that confident it will burst by 2020. There's too many factors at play that I can't accurately predict a timeline. I just think we're in a bubble because I look at valuations of companies like Uber and AirBnB and they seem inflated to me.
eganist 10y ago
> The goal of this bet was to deflate the bubble conversation, and that seemed somewhat effective. Is it the bet which deflated the bubble conversation, or a deflation (or speculation of such) of the bubble itself? I ask because if you take a look at layman-accessible headlines or even some of the conversations which take place here, there's still quite a lot about the "downturn" in the bay. That alone's likely enough to get people to stop talking "bubble" even if the only downturn was in the rate of acceleration of growth, not in actual growth itself. Still, I appreciate the bet for putting the focus on entrepreneurial efforts as a force of worldwide change rather than as a force of wealth creation.
vasilipupkin 10y ago
Hmmm. I think at least some of these companies are worth less now than a year ago. Zenefits, coinbase, palantir, mixpanel, etc. am I wrong? Agree on the bubble issue. It's a boring discussion
- nostrademons 10y ago
  That's why the bet is structured as a portfolio. In startup investing, it doesn't matter if some of the portfolio loses big (or everything) as long as there's at least one winner that expands many-fold.
  - vasilipupkin 10y ago
    Sure. But I'm sceptical of the claim that the whole portfolio is worth 50% more than last year. I don't know for sure, but as an example, Palantir valuation is down http://www.wsj.com/articles/t-rowe-price-marks-down-most-of-its-tech-startups-1460759094 http://www.wsj.com/articles/t-rowe-price-marks-down-most-of-...
tacos 10y ago
I question your valuations... they're neither public market numbers nor completed acquisitions. You're using the bubble to validate your assumptions that you're not in a bubble.
- deong 10y ago
  Well, that's kind of what you have to do. The definition of a bubble is contingent on the burst at the end. If it never bursts, it wasn't a bubble. So you take today's valuations (which you assume are bubble-inflated) and then compare them to the valuation at some future date. If the valuations are a lot lower, then there was a burst and thus a bubble. If not, no bubble (or it's still ongoing).

by sama 10y ago

ebbv 10y ago

Do you think that perhaps there were crickets because the people with the money/position to be able to take the bet have good reason to share your bullish view because they also stand to benefit from you being right? So they have to not only be bearish but be really confident about being bearish to take your bet? I believe we are in a bubble but I'm not a millionaire I'm just a regular developer, so I don't have $100k to gamble. Maybe I should have offered to take your bet at $100 a year ago? :) To be honest, though, even though I believe we are in a bubble I don't feel that confident it will burst by 2020. There's too many factors at play that I can't accurately predict a timeline. I just think we're in a bubble because I look at valuations of companies like Uber and AirBnB and they seem inflated to me.

eganist 10y ago

> The goal of this bet was to deflate the bubble conversation, and that seemed somewhat effective. Is it the bet which deflated the bubble conversation, or a deflation (or speculation of such) of the bubble itself? I ask because if you take a look at layman-accessible headlines or even some of the conversations which take place here, there's still quite a lot about the "downturn" in the bay. That alone's likely enough to get people to stop talking "bubble" even if the only downturn was in the rate of acceleration of growth, not in actual growth itself. Still, I appreciate the bet for putting the focus on entrepreneurial efforts as a force of worldwide change rather than as a force of wealth creation.

vasilipupkin 10y ago

Hmmm. I think at least some of these companies are worth less now than a year ago. Zenefits, coinbase, palantir, mixpanel, etc. am I wrong? Agree on the bubble issue. It's a boring discussion

nostrademons 10y ago
That's why the bet is structured as a portfolio. In startup investing, it doesn't matter if some of the portfolio loses big (or everything) as long as there's at least one winner that expands many-fold.
- vasilipupkin 10y ago
  Sure. But I'm sceptical of the claim that the whole portfolio is worth 50% more than last year. I don't know for sure, but as an example, Palantir valuation is down http://www.wsj.com/articles/t-rowe-price-marks-down-most-of-its-tech-startups-1460759094 http://www.wsj.com/articles/t-rowe-price-marks-down-most-of-...

tacos 10y ago

I question your valuations... they're neither public market numbers nor completed acquisitions. You're using the bubble to validate your assumptions that you're not in a bubble.

deong 10y ago
Well, that's kind of what you have to do. The definition of a bubble is contingent on the burst at the end. If it never bursts, it wasn't a bubble. So you take today's valuations (which you assume are bubble-inflated) and then compare them to the valuation at some future date. If the valuations are a lot lower, then there was a burst and thus a bubble. If not, no bubble (or it's still ongoing).