4 ms·
>[...] but it's interesting how we value the capital that those companies put in far more than we value the years of work those two put in. "We" value taking r
by jcfrei 8y ago
>[...] but it's interesting how we value the capital that those companies put in far more than we value the years of work those two put in.
"We" value taking risks more than working. An investor in Lyft carries much more risk than the founders - who would quickly find new jobs. But if the company goes bust the investor's money is gone.
- dv_dt 8y agoThey put in capital, true, but it wouldn’t be available unless this was the most likely fit for their investment profile, vs say low yield treasuries. The investors are just playing maximization game and have much more security than the lyft founders even if they lose ecery cent. We lionize the “risk” of VC investors far too much.
- ryandrake 8y agoAlso, let’s get real: VC investors are rich. They were rich before the investment, and they will be rich afterwards, regardless of the outcome. Maybe they will be ultra-rich after an exit, or they’ll be simply super-rich after a failure. Either way, they are already in the “set for life no matter what” category, so really, are they taking that much of a personal risk?
- dv_dt 8y agoThat's what I mean, the investors are so rich, it makes complete sense to take a portion of their riches and invest in high risk high reward states where most of the outcomes will be every cent is lost. It's not only set for life type money, but so much money that hiring teams of people to figure out how to even invest the proceeds in a rational way, of which VCs are just one subset of the team (outsourced, insourced, or otherwise).