10 ms·

Yes it is. They backed a couple hilariously bad bets in a big, public way, and people like feeling smarter than rich strangers. I would be curious, though, if

Yes it is. They backed a couple hilariously bad bets in a big, public way, and people like feeling smarter than rich strangers. I would be curious, though, if there are other funds with similar scope and track records to Vision 1 that have just managed to skate under public scrutiny thus far.

swyx 7y ago
TechCrunch is just reflects the zeitgeist. Softbank was a whale, mentioning them connects this story to the ongoing theme for readers.
rchaud 7y ago
> They backed a couple hilariously bad bets in a big, public way, and people like feeling smarter than rich strangers. The two things are related. The public visions for these companies went beyond the standard startup platitudes about 'making the world a better place'. Regular people can see through that, because they don't live in an SV bubble where playing along with this sort of hubris is encouraged. I don't think anyone thinks they're smarter than Softbank or Adam Neumann. They may just be enjoying the schadenfreude of this hubris come crashing back to earth once reality entered the picture.
- dntrkv 7y ago
  > I don't think anyone thinks they're smarter than Softbank or Adam Neumann. With all the armchair investing going on, you would think otherwise.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- perl4ever 7y ago
  Neumann walked away with billions, didn't he? Others may have lost vast amounts, but on net, you can't say he suffered.
askafriend 7y ago
It's not just a couple, and the way they did it is notable. They over-capitalized companies in key sectors like logistics, transportation, robotics, etc. They pumped in hundreds of millions of dollars per round of funding even when the company might not have needed it (with the threat being "we'll heavily fund your competition if you don't take our deal). Their thesis was to monopolize a few sectors with sheer money and scale. We're now seeing the effects of that strategy play out.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  "with the threat being "we'll heavily fund your competition if you don't take our deal" Well, I've read that in some cases, they heavily funded the competition anyway. Which is something else people made fun of them for.
  - askafriend 7y ago
    > Well, I've read that in some cases, they heavily funded the competition anyway. This was the case with their investments in ride-sharing companies globally.
jjeaff 7y ago
Don't forget that part of the negativity towards SoftBank comes from the source of most of their funds. At least the majority of their funds in the previous fund they raised.

swyx 7y ago

TechCrunch is just reflects the zeitgeist. Softbank was a whale, mentioning them connects this story to the ongoing theme for readers.

rchaud 7y ago

> They backed a couple hilariously bad bets in a big, public way, and people like feeling smarter than rich strangers. The two things are related. The public visions for these companies went beyond the standard startup platitudes about 'making the world a better place'. Regular people can see through that, because they don't live in an SV bubble where playing along with this sort of hubris is encouraged. I don't think anyone thinks they're smarter than Softbank or Adam Neumann. They may just be enjoying the schadenfreude of this hubris come crashing back to earth once reality entered the picture.

dntrkv 7y ago
> I don't think anyone thinks they're smarter than Softbank or Adam Neumann. With all the armchair investing going on, you would think otherwise.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
perl4ever 7y ago
Neumann walked away with billions, didn't he? Others may have lost vast amounts, but on net, you can't say he suffered.

askafriend 7y ago

It's not just a couple, and the way they did it is notable. They over-capitalized companies in key sectors like logistics, transportation, robotics, etc. They pumped in hundreds of millions of dollars per round of funding even when the company might not have needed it (with the threat being "we'll heavily fund your competition if you don't take our deal). Their thesis was to monopolize a few sectors with sheer money and scale. We're now seeing the effects of that strategy play out.

perl4ever 7y ago
"with the threat being "we'll heavily fund your competition if you don't take our deal" Well, I've read that in some cases, they heavily funded the competition anyway. Which is something else people made fun of them for.
- askafriend 7y ago
  > Well, I've read that in some cases, they heavily funded the competition anyway. This was the case with their investments in ride-sharing companies globally.

jjeaff 7y ago

Don't forget that part of the negativity towards SoftBank comes from the source of most of their funds. At least the majority of their funds in the previous fund they raised.