Considering that only a small number of VCs make any money at all (power law strikes again), it doesn't surprise me that the rest of them are some combination o

Considering that only a small number of VCs make any money at all (power law strikes again), it doesn't surprise me that the rest of them are some combination of reluctant and inept when it comes to investing and seeing the long term game of some of these prospective hard science initiatives. The ones that do succeed end up spending what money they made to keep the deck stacked their way and crush opposition. It's not so much that there's no barriers to entry. They exist, it's all the competitors that have VC money ready to burn to keep you out of the game. Example: EV wouldn't have really taken off without Tesla battering the living shit out of it. Now the other manufacturers are starting to play catch up after suppressing it for decades. It's not like we miraculously discovered the technology for EV drivetrains a decade ago. It's been there all along, and every single one of those fuckers has been stomping on any and every initiative with a warchest of money to make sure it doesn't happen. Looking back after all these years, "invest in people not in products" seems like nothing more than glorified lip service. I want to agree with the article but I have no skin in the game. The only VC tier stuff I was involved it was F&F angel investing and it has worked out quite well, but the scale of money and time needed for "hard sciences" is beyond my level of expertise, and, I imagine, beyond the expertise of most VCs out there. In short, I suspect most VCs do not know what they are doing when it comes to investing, given the paltry ROIs for most of them. So the article is really restating that in a different sort of way.