6 ms·

Wow, admittedly my perception of these guys was totally skewed after seeing the movie The Social Network. When I read about their original investment in 2013 I

by ramzyo 9y ago

Wow, admittedly my perception of these guys was totally skewed after seeing the movie The Social Network. When I read about their original investment in 2013 I totally wrote it off as being a hairbrained move. Clearly succumbed to my own biases in passing that unfair judgment. Good for them for being so savvy.

ProAm 9y ago
Never trust a hollywood adaptation to be remotely historically accurate or honest.
- gozur88 9y ago
  That's why they say "based on a true story" instead of "this is a true story". They can change whatever they want and call it artistic license.
  - ramzyo 9y ago
    Yup, totally agree. Probably also because there’s no written record of what was actually said or done in the majority of micro-events that help to define personalities and setup plot lines (eg the opening bar scene at Thirsty Scholar in The Social Network between Mark Zuckerberg and his love interest).
- ramzyo 9y ago
  Hmm, well clearly in this case I was wrong about these guys, but I have to disagree on your comment about never trusting Hollywood adaptations to be remotely historically accurate or honest. Personally I think Hollywood adaptations generally get the broad points correct, so they are generally accurate and honest (eg Howard Hughes was a reclusive hermit toward the end of his life, as portrayed by Leo DiCaprio in The Aviator).
  - lamarpye 9y ago
    That is one movie, Hollywood often portrays Jessie James as a Robin Hood-like figure, taking from the rich and giving to the poor. In reality, he was murderous bandit.
    - ramzyo 9y ago
      True, and yet those are also only several movies of many tens of thousands. I don't think this debate would be resolved back and forth example for example. Instead, replace the OP's use of the word never with "only sometimes", "don't usually", or even "more often than not don't", and the comment would be more reflective of its underlying nature: opinion, absent hard data.
      - lamarpye 9y ago
        The fun of some debates is that they are never resolved.
        ramzyo 9y ago
        Agreed!
Buldak 9y ago
The twins are more or less villains in the movie, but I'd say they aren't presented as stupid or inept.
- ramzyo 9y ago
  Agreed. One of my biases was to equate inability to execute on an idea but ultimately claim credit for its successful execution as ineptitude. Clearly this was an incorrect and unfair assumption.
ACow_Adonis 9y ago
Or....it was a hair-brained move, but it happened to turn out well for them, and now you're succumbing to post-fact rationalisation bias that rich gamblers who get a payout at a point in time actually know what they're doing... Edit: ironically?, the fact that most people partake in this bias actually increases such people's likelihood of being successful in the future.
- ramzyo 9y ago
  Could be, but a re-evaluation of my past harsh assumptions felt more constructive than further writing them off in my head as inept. I don’t know how many others are out there that I can say originated the idea for Facebook (at least in its Harvard-only original form) AND were early to get involved big with Bitcoin (and now, at least on paper, are billionaires because of that insight/luck/combo whatever).
- meowface 9y ago
  Or it was neither a brilliant nor a hair-brained move and was a reasonably calculated risk which paid off likely due to a mix of luck and prescience? There were many reasonable, intelligent people out there who weren't blinded by the anarchy/libertarian hype and yet still speculated Bitcoin's price would skyrocket based on rational predictions and bets. The fact that these guys were partly on the ground floor for the rise of one of the most influential tech companies in the world and very much on the ground floor for one of the (so far) highest ROI assets and biggest technological advances (practical blockchain, consensus, and cryptocurrency tech; not Bitcoin in particular) of the past 50 years shows that at the very least they're probably not bozo meatheads in the way Sorkin and Fincher portrayed them (as entertaining as the movie was).
  - NoahWebster 9y ago
    Folks, the word is spelled harebrained.
    - jlgaddis 9y ago
      I'm impressed that you created a new account to contribute to the conversation with such a substantive, thought-prevoking comment.
59nadir 9y ago
You don't judge a move in poker by its outcome, but rather if it made sense given what information was available. You may not be this type of person normally, but I find that most people I come across have an incredibly hard time evaluating choices based on what information was available when they were made and not by their outcome.
sytelus 9y ago
They have net worth of $500m. They invested 2% of their net worth in to bitcoins. This is not savvy, it's just simple diversification that probably everyone in this net worth level is doing. The article reports it incorrectly that they are "first bitcoin billionaires". If you had $1 billion net worth you probably had at least a million dollars (0.1% of your assets) invested in such exotic things that would have high risk, high rewards.

by ramzyo 9y ago

ProAm 9y ago

Never trust a hollywood adaptation to be remotely historically accurate or honest.

gozur88 9y ago
That's why they say "based on a true story" instead of "this is a true story". They can change whatever they want and call it artistic license.
- ramzyo 9y ago
  Yup, totally agree. Probably also because there’s no written record of what was actually said or done in the majority of micro-events that help to define personalities and setup plot lines (eg the opening bar scene at Thirsty Scholar in The Social Network between Mark Zuckerberg and his love interest).
ramzyo 9y ago
Hmm, well clearly in this case I was wrong about these guys, but I have to disagree on your comment about never trusting Hollywood adaptations to be remotely historically accurate or honest. Personally I think Hollywood adaptations generally get the broad points correct, so they are generally accurate and honest (eg Howard Hughes was a reclusive hermit toward the end of his life, as portrayed by Leo DiCaprio in The Aviator).
- lamarpye 9y ago
  That is one movie, Hollywood often portrays Jessie James as a Robin Hood-like figure, taking from the rich and giving to the poor. In reality, he was murderous bandit.
  - ramzyo 9y ago
    True, and yet those are also only several movies of many tens of thousands. I don't think this debate would be resolved back and forth example for example. Instead, replace the OP's use of the word never with "only sometimes", "don't usually", or even "more often than not don't", and the comment would be more reflective of its underlying nature: opinion, absent hard data.
    - lamarpye 9y ago
      The fun of some debates is that they are never resolved.
      - ramzyo 9y ago
        Agreed!

Buldak 9y ago

The twins are more or less villains in the movie, but I'd say they aren't presented as stupid or inept.

ramzyo 9y ago
Agreed. One of my biases was to equate inability to execute on an idea but ultimately claim credit for its successful execution as ineptitude. Clearly this was an incorrect and unfair assumption.

ACow_Adonis 9y ago

Or....it was a hair-brained move, but it happened to turn out well for them, and now you're succumbing to post-fact rationalisation bias that rich gamblers who get a payout at a point in time actually know what they're doing... Edit: ironically?, the fact that most people partake in this bias actually increases such people's likelihood of being successful in the future.

ramzyo 9y ago
Could be, but a re-evaluation of my past harsh assumptions felt more constructive than further writing them off in my head as inept. I don’t know how many others are out there that I can say originated the idea for Facebook (at least in its Harvard-only original form) AND were early to get involved big with Bitcoin (and now, at least on paper, are billionaires because of that insight/luck/combo whatever).
meowface 9y ago
Or it was neither a brilliant nor a hair-brained move and was a reasonably calculated risk which paid off likely due to a mix of luck and prescience? There were many reasonable, intelligent people out there who weren't blinded by the anarchy/libertarian hype and yet still speculated Bitcoin's price would skyrocket based on rational predictions and bets. The fact that these guys were partly on the ground floor for the rise of one of the most influential tech companies in the world and very much on the ground floor for one of the (so far) highest ROI assets and biggest technological advances (practical blockchain, consensus, and cryptocurrency tech; not Bitcoin in particular) of the past 50 years shows that at the very least they're probably not bozo meatheads in the way Sorkin and Fincher portrayed them (as entertaining as the movie was).
- NoahWebster 9y ago
  Folks, the word is spelled harebrained.
  - jlgaddis 9y ago
    I'm impressed that you created a new account to contribute to the conversation with such a substantive, thought-prevoking comment.

59nadir 9y ago

You don't judge a move in poker by its outcome, but rather if it made sense given what information was available. You may not be this type of person normally, but I find that most people I come across have an incredibly hard time evaluating choices based on what information was available when they were made and not by their outcome.

sytelus 9y ago

They have net worth of $500m. They invested 2% of their net worth in to bitcoins. This is not savvy, it's just simple diversification that probably everyone in this net worth level is doing. The article reports it incorrectly that they are "first bitcoin billionaires". If you had $1 billion net worth you probably had at least a million dollars (0.1% of your assets) invested in such exotic things that would have high risk, high rewards.