3 ms·

Can't they decide that? Wouldn't they be in the best position to know that first hand? Why do you think you know better? How could you possibly know better? Th

Can't they decide that? Wouldn't they be in the best position to know that first hand? Why do you think you know better? How could you possibly know better? The same argument exists for why Social Security is a good idea. Right now the government takes 15% of my income while saying they know how to spend it better than I do. They've started wars, bailed out G.M., the banks, and whoever else has paid them off. It seems like they're not to be trusted with much of anything that matters.

tansey 16y ago
The same argument exists for just about every fiscal requirement the government imposes on us, that doesn't mean it's not necessary. People on HN are not normals. If the USA was filled with nothing but hackers, we probably would do just fine with a more libertarian set of policies. Unfortunately, we're the fringe, and we have to pay for the masses' mistakes. Many normals would gamble away their wealth. Without social security, many people would be ruined and too old to sustain themselves.
vaksel 16y ago
no they can't. unlike real gambling where there are real odds of success, startups are a crap shoot each and every time. There is no science, no formula for success. Even the best investors, the ones who get the BEST deals like Ron Conway, don't have a perfect track record. And unlike big time investors like YC/RC, these are the people who'll be investing into 1-2 companies max(no diversification), who won't know what they are doing. Who'll be gambling with money they can't afford to lose. The networth requirement isn't there to stop investment, it's to stop investment from gullible investors who'd likely be defrauded by snake oil salesmen pitching their startups. OF COURSE the site will make $5 million in 3 years. OF COURSE you should invest in us. YOU CAN'T lose. Hockey stick, hockey stick, hockey stick.
- util 16y ago
  Real odds of success? In gambling, for the house (or state lottery) to make money, the expected value of your bet has to be negative. This is not the case with investments in start-ups.
  - vaksel 16y ago
    Are you sure? 90% of VC backed startups fail. What do you think that number is for angel backed startups?

tansey 16y ago

The same argument exists for just about every fiscal requirement the government imposes on us, that doesn't mean it's not necessary. People on HN are not normals. If the USA was filled with nothing but hackers, we probably would do just fine with a more libertarian set of policies. Unfortunately, we're the fringe, and we have to pay for the masses' mistakes. Many normals would gamble away their wealth. Without social security, many people would be ruined and too old to sustain themselves.

vaksel 16y ago

no they can't. unlike real gambling where there are real odds of success, startups are a crap shoot each and every time. There is no science, no formula for success. Even the best investors, the ones who get the BEST deals like Ron Conway, don't have a perfect track record. And unlike big time investors like YC/RC, these are the people who'll be investing into 1-2 companies max(no diversification), who won't know what they are doing. Who'll be gambling with money they can't afford to lose. The networth requirement isn't there to stop investment, it's to stop investment from gullible investors who'd likely be defrauded by snake oil salesmen pitching their startups. OF COURSE the site will make $5 million in 3 years. OF COURSE you should invest in us. YOU CAN'T lose. Hockey stick, hockey stick, hockey stick.

util 16y ago
Real odds of success? In gambling, for the house (or state lottery) to make money, the expected value of your bet has to be negative. This is not the case with investments in start-ups.
- vaksel 16y ago
  Are you sure? 90% of VC backed startups fail. What do you think that number is for angel backed startups?