Another thing (sorry for double reply but it's really a totally different comment) I think you have to frame "losers" in a financial context. Let's assume the

Another thing (sorry for double reply but it's really a totally different comment) I think you have to frame "losers" in a financial context. Let's assume the hypothetical "entrepreneur" of your comment is an ambitious 25-30 year old male (they usually are), then the relevant question becomes, "am I better off being an entrepreneur or working for someone else". I think that's as much a question about the value of autonomy vs. money. I have little doubt most people, given that they could work at say, Goldman, would be better off financially doing that than trying to do a tech startup. So in that sense, they've definitely "lost". Then there's the investor's perspective...a company that takes a $100k investment and turns it into $1M for the investor is a pretty good outcome. And I think there's a lot of potential for wins on that scale, but that's not how things are being done today. Instead, money is piling into OKish opportunities by the truckload, because every investor has the hubris to think their deal flow is as good as Greylock/a16z/USV/KPCB, etc. They'll win because they have their pick of what deal to do, and there certainly are great companies; there just aren't enough to go around to all the low-tier family offices and rich-doctor syndicates, and other "fools" who are piling into tech equity. The point is, I think you have to frame win vs. loss in terms of opportunity cost. If the broad market declines 10% and you only lose 2%, that might be a "win" even though, objectively, it's a "loss".