The article misses the point, I think. The reason why (most, not all!) VCs are successful is not because they have some secret visionary insights into the futu

The article misses the point, I think. The reason why (most, not all!) VCs are successful is not because they have some secret visionary insights into the future of technology but rather because they have the means of diversifying their investments in things that are more or less guaranteed to happen. Will work be more decentralized in 10 years than it is today? Yes. Will financial institutions move away from the archaic infrastructure it's on today over the next decade or two? Yes. Will education move online and become more personalized in the next 10 years? Yes. So, just invest in 20 remote work SaaS companies, 20 fintech products, and 20 online education startups and you'll have a fair shot at making some money. In other words, most VCs are really just private equity versions of index funds. Because of this, most VCs lack the experience, understanding, and interest in investing in highly experimental projects (there are exceptions of course!) As an example, I would be very surprised if any of the major VCs today would have invested in a small set of people who wanted to work on what would eventually become the transistor or TCP/IP. There's a reason why these things tend to start in huge corporate research labs (bell labs) or universities: they're not obvious and they're not obviously profitable. So, the real reason why these companies are not being built is not that the people aren't there willing to build them, it's because nobody's willing to listen. They're just a bunch of crackpots with crazy sounding ideas... until they're not.