I found that as hilarious myself. A VC whose firm is the one who has been pushing the hardest for web3, cypto-fund, Chris Dixon etc., who when asked, seriously

I found that as hilarious myself. A VC whose firm is the one who has been pushing the hardest for web3, cypto-fund, Chris Dixon etc., who when asked, seriously this time, not by people who are boot-licking on the basis of the billions made, what web3 is for, cannot articulate an answer that goes beyond a word salad with no dressing. On the basis of those very famous billions, should he be allowed a pass anytime he says nonsense? He is an amazing technologist, but it appears to me that when he, and many other VCs, go beyond the boundaries of their technical expertise, they know as much as the guy who get their news from twitter. Their fame and worth sometimes prevent me from commenting on their nonsense on Twitter because I say to myself, who am I to criticize someone who moves billions? I got the same vibe from a few too many CEO, CTO, and other assorted C- of big and famous companies. The CTO of my previous company, which had a total number of employees greater than 150,000 heads, was terribly underwhelming any time they decided to give their opinion on current business, and the future of the business and of the technology supporting the business. But they were never criticized because they were the CTO of a company of 150,000 people and therefore inherently extraordinary. The principle of authority does not work in science and works a bit more (too much!) in business because the authority can move the market, but not because the authority is right. It is fine, of course, nobody is a genius everywhere, and as the comment said, he has been incredibly successful, 10,000 more than I have been. But some people, for the worship they get, are more disappointing than others when they show their true, and not assumed, intellectual range.