5 ms·

It would be doomed to fail. These business models run on VC funny money. They lose millions even when already paying garbage wages to couriers. Maybe way in th

It would be doomed to fail. These business models run on VC funny money. They lose millions even when already paying garbage wages to couriers. Maybe way in the future once automated delivery is much more mature (and cheaper), could a co-op be possible. But we're talking decades later. And also talking about a completely different world by then.

k__ 7y ago
You think so? I have the feeling, many the co-ops are formed "because" regular company wouldn't survive.
johnchristopher 7y ago
https://citiz.coop/english https://citiz.coop/english is a french car sharing cooperative that dates back to 2002.
heavyset_go 7y ago
These companies hemorrhage money because they try to stretch a single entity across the entire worldwide market, when many smaller regional companies are the likely equilibrium this space would naturally reach if it wasn't injected with VC money. Certainly a decentralized federation of co-ops would work just as well as many small regional companies, or even franchises.
- thrownblown 7y ago
  I run a logistics saas that's used by many food delivery co-ops. AMA.
  - heavyset_go 7y ago
    Name drop the SaaS and a few of those delivery co-ops. Genuinely interested in getting involved in the space.
    - thrownblown 7y ago
      twinjet.co we have partners in around 50 cities in US, CA, COL, MEX, AU and NZ. hmu support@twinjet.co if you want to discuss.
  - k__ 7y ago
    So your SaaS isn't a co-op? I would have guessed that a co-op of many delivery workers would be a way to gather enough money to create such a SaaS.
    - thrownblown 7y ago
      No my saas is for courier company management, the co-ops are utilizing my software to run their company. As far as gathering enough funds to create their own saas, they could but mine is cheaper! The real money is in that 30% slice of the sales of the food. The couriers aren't the marketers or the customer service staff, both are necessary to get the sale.
throwaway_law 7y ago
>It would be doomed to fail. These business models run on VC funny money. No reason a VC couldn't invest in a co-op. Or if they feel they aren't getting the unicorn returns they want, then instead of a co-op it could be organized as an employee owned and operated entity. I think that is the future, and the disruption SV needs at this point...stop the madness of centralizing the wealth among founders and investors, and distribute it to the workers.
- ericd 7y ago
  Why would the investors invest in something where they wouldn’t get a large part of the returns? They’re not investing their own money, they have investors (things like pension funds) that they have to answer to. And honestly, the majority of VC funds don’t do very well, even taking the large stakes they do. It’s a hits driven business, and if you don’t get those one or two breakout successes, you probably don’t make back your fund.
  - throwaway_law 7y ago
    >Why would the investors invest in something where they wouldn’t get a large part of the returns? Why would you think the investors would get any less returns if the entity (say uber) was driver owned? They wouldn't everything remains the same, except instead of a concentration of ownership in a small group of founders, that same percentage of ownership would be distributed among a larger group of workers. So the real question is why are investors so adverse to employee owned enterprises and invest in small groups of founders.
    - ericd 7y ago
      >stop the madness of centralizing the wealth among founders and investors, and distribute it to the workers. This seemed to imply that the investors would take less of a stake. Are they adverse to funding employee owned enterprises? I've never looked into it. Maybe they think that companies with dictatorial management are more effective at competing? For the record, having been a founder, I agree that equity tends to be overly concentrated with the founders.

k__ 7y ago

You think so? I have the feeling, many the co-ops are formed "because" regular company wouldn't survive.

johnchristopher 7y ago

https://citiz.coop/english https://citiz.coop/english is a french car sharing cooperative that dates back to 2002.

heavyset_go 7y ago

These companies hemorrhage money because they try to stretch a single entity across the entire worldwide market, when many smaller regional companies are the likely equilibrium this space would naturally reach if it wasn't injected with VC money. Certainly a decentralized federation of co-ops would work just as well as many small regional companies, or even franchises.

thrownblown 7y ago
I run a logistics saas that's used by many food delivery co-ops. AMA.
- heavyset_go 7y ago
  Name drop the SaaS and a few of those delivery co-ops. Genuinely interested in getting involved in the space.
  - thrownblown 7y ago
    twinjet.co we have partners in around 50 cities in US, CA, COL, MEX, AU and NZ. hmu support@twinjet.co if you want to discuss.
- k__ 7y ago
  So your SaaS isn't a co-op? I would have guessed that a co-op of many delivery workers would be a way to gather enough money to create such a SaaS.
  - thrownblown 7y ago
    No my saas is for courier company management, the co-ops are utilizing my software to run their company. As far as gathering enough funds to create their own saas, they could but mine is cheaper! The real money is in that 30% slice of the sales of the food. The couriers aren't the marketers or the customer service staff, both are necessary to get the sale.

throwaway_law 7y ago

>It would be doomed to fail. These business models run on VC funny money. No reason a VC couldn't invest in a co-op. Or if they feel they aren't getting the unicorn returns they want, then instead of a co-op it could be organized as an employee owned and operated entity. I think that is the future, and the disruption SV needs at this point...stop the madness of centralizing the wealth among founders and investors, and distribute it to the workers.

ericd 7y ago
Why would the investors invest in something where they wouldn’t get a large part of the returns? They’re not investing their own money, they have investors (things like pension funds) that they have to answer to. And honestly, the majority of VC funds don’t do very well, even taking the large stakes they do. It’s a hits driven business, and if you don’t get those one or two breakout successes, you probably don’t make back your fund.
- throwaway_law 7y ago
  >Why would the investors invest in something where they wouldn’t get a large part of the returns? Why would you think the investors would get any less returns if the entity (say uber) was driver owned? They wouldn't everything remains the same, except instead of a concentration of ownership in a small group of founders, that same percentage of ownership would be distributed among a larger group of workers. So the real question is why are investors so adverse to employee owned enterprises and invest in small groups of founders.
  - ericd 7y ago
    >stop the madness of centralizing the wealth among founders and investors, and distribute it to the workers. This seemed to imply that the investors would take less of a stake. Are they adverse to funding employee owned enterprises? I've never looked into it. Maybe they think that companies with dictatorial management are more effective at competing? For the record, having been a founder, I agree that equity tends to be overly concentrated with the founders.