8 ms·

I am sorry but I am not a believer in a16z anything after their massive crypto token scams and wealth extraction. We all need to move away from all these compan

I am sorry but I am not a believer in a16z anything after their massive crypto token scams and wealth extraction. We all need to move away from all these companies who continue to bloat in private and then have a big pay day as a public company.

tikkun 3y ago
Yes. I feel there should be some kind of anti-list of people who dumped SPACs and ICOs on the public. I personally feel it was pretty gross behavior (in many, but not all, cases), and the people who did the egregious ones mostly knew at the time that they were doing a zero sum wealth transfer to themselves. I personally avoid working with people who were involved in ICOs and SPACs where at the time of issuance a reasonable analysis could've shown that it was grossly overpriced to the public investors it was sold to (because in those cases, I believe that the issuer themselves should've known, and shouldn't have proceeded).
- whimsicalism 3y ago
  e: Removed, not sure I really agree with what I wrote on further reflection
  - AJ007 3y ago
    That just isn't a reasonable statement. No one forces someone to participate in a ponzi scheme. The problem with SPACS is these were companies that did not go the IPO route because they would not pass SEC approval. Companies should go public even if they are unlikely to survive, but what we saw was mostly fraud. They received absurd valuations based on exaggerated growth claims combined with imaginary non-GAAP accounting -- things you can't do in an IPO. Some of these participants will get in trouble. Enforcement is not immediate. a16z is probably going to end up in a lot of trouble over their cryptocurrency shenanigans. I think these guys pretty much burned their reputation in exchange for things like owning a $177m house in Malibu. The consequences will be felt by everyone, not just the shitco and shitcoin hucksters.
    - whimsicalism 3y ago
      Fair enough, I didn't realize SPACs were effectively an end-run around SEC approval & GAAP accounting - and I worded too strongly for what was effectively an uninformed take.
    - ibejoeb 3y ago
      Burning rep for wealth is kinda an SV trope, though, right? It's "fuck you money."
- ftxbro 3y ago
  > the people who did the egregious ones mostly knew at the time that they were doing a zero sum wealth transfer to themselves sorry we can't all be dirt farmers in USA we got to get that bag or we die from medical cost EDIT: everyone downvoting me knows it is true
  - bee_rider 3y ago
    Lots of people out there have decent middle class careers working in technical roles outside the FOMO-based-startup sector.
- sroussey 3y ago
  I have the data. What would be a good UI for it? For example: https://embarc.com/capital/leadership/chamath-palihapitiya https://embarc.com/capital/leadership/chamath-palihapitiya
  - tikkun 3y ago
    A list, ranked by person/sponsor, ranked by total value reduction across all SPACs they did since some time point (merger? before then?), and normalized for multiple compression by looking at the ratio of some overall public tech index between that date and now (so that they're not overly penalized by multiple compression from higher interest rates). Either presented as a list on a web page or a list in an infographic/image. Overall show how much wealth public investors have lost in aggregate from investing with that person, normalized to general tech stock market declines. How much did they lose relative to the market. Their alpha, or negative alpha, I suppose.
bowsamic 3y ago
Also not a fan after one of their members went on twitter saying that all non STEM education should be eradicated
hackernoteng 3y ago
You should never be a "believer" or trust ANY VC. They are blood suckers who only want to make 10x their money
- snewman 3y ago
  This is oversimplified at best. Not all VCs are created equal. A broad-brush characterization like this removes any incentive for VCs to behave well (if everyone will assume the worst of you, why bother trying to build a good reputation), and discourages entrepreneurs from vetting their investors (why bother, if they're all equally bad).
  - rvz 3y ago
    They don't care. The goal for all VCs is to make large returns from startups, Otherwise they underperform. VCs know that 90% of these startups fail and will make sure that they are highly unlikely to lose. Even if it means dumping on retail at higher prices via selling SAFEs in 'crowdfunding campaigns'.
- seizethecheese 3y ago
  And are willing to fund 9 failures… nobody else will do that and it’s impossible without gunning for the 10x return.
jjtheblunt 3y ago
that's nothing to be sorry about
dpflan 3y ago
I mean, the `canon` here is not created by experts in AI. It is to put something on the internet to make a16z look legit on AI and get traffic.
- moinnadeem 3y ago
  I wouldn't go so far. I know the authors quite well, and as someone who has multiple publications in machine learning confeerences (and started a PhD in ML), they know their stuff well.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - dpflan 3y ago
    OK, thanks for reassuring.
- lazzlazzlazz 3y ago
  The piece speaks for itself. It’s very strong.
  - dpflan 3y ago
    OK, thanks for reassuring.
mediaman 3y ago
a16z's investment thesis completely centers around finding the next bagholder for their investments. They don't care about building enduring businesses that make them a lot of money because the businesses are actually driving that much value creation. They care about creating a hype cycle and dumping before the tide goes out and their investments crash on someone else's balance sheet. None of them could get on a podcast and say anything remotely rational or intelligent about their crypto investments: it was all pump and dump. In one interview, their head of crypto investments main value claim was "monetizing the sharing of your home wifi," and after some pushback resorted to deference to authority by saying the founders they invest in went to the right schools and nobody else could understand because "they weren't in the room." These are smart people who couldn't articulate a clear value. They obviously didn't believe any of it and just saw an opportunity to promote a Dutch tulip mania. Good fund for con artist "entrepreneurs" though. Same deal for Chamath and his SPACs. There's increasing hesitation among builders to take money from funds that have strayed this far from long-term value creation, because once they get addicted to short-term pump and dump profits and chasing the latest thing, it's hard to go back to supporting actual builders.
- jjoonathan 3y ago
  > None of them could get on a podcast and say anything remotely rational or intelligent > main value claim was "monetizing the sharing of your home wifi," Let's see, we have a big stagnant incumbent monopoly, a last-mile moat that allows them the monopoly, and a proposed strategy for attacking the moat. Most ISPs have a "no-sharing" clause, but it isn't difficult to brainstorm potential workarounds: seeding connections into high-density locations, netflix boxes, even possibly a legislative play in a sympathetic area. Of course, the crux is in the execution of the workaround, but I'd expect this to have some complexity to it and I wouldn't expect a random a16z podcast host to necessarily have details at that resolution. I certainly wouldn't call them an idiot for not having all the details handy. You seem pretty darn sure that it's a prima-facie idiotic idea, however. Can you back that up and explain your reasoning? Or are you just not remotely rational or intelligent enough to imagine a business that doesn't already exist? (See, I can be an asshole too!)
  - 3y ago
pcbro141 3y ago
You don't have to be a believer in a16z to find this list of AI resources useful.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > don't have to be a believer in a16z to find this list of AI resources useful One wonders why the authors published with them, as well as what down-round portfolio company a16z are using this to shill.
  - SkyMarshal 3y ago
    I doubt there are any down-round AI portfolio companies right now. It's too hot.
  - robotresearcher 3y ago
    It’s a list of links to websites. Not a journal or book.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
ramraj07 3y ago
Their crypto scams look like child's play compared to their 350MM investment into Adam Neumann AGAIN. Like whaaat? Were "Liz" Holmes and Martin Shrkeli not available? Or did SBF not satiate you enough?
- boeingUH60 3y ago
  They are ready to pump another stock again.
dekhn 3y ago
Do you include other parts of a16z like their biology investments? Do you believe the bio folks are doing scamming and wealth extraction (beyond the normal VC scamming and wealth extraction)? Or is it guilt-by-association, simple being in a16z when another part of the company did something dumb is enough to write them off?
rvz 3y ago
Oh sweet summer child. VCs exist to make money. They do not care what industry it is, unless it makes them a giant return.
SkyMarshal 3y ago
The submission has nothing to do with what you're complaining about. It's just a review of key papers, writings, and courses that are most pertinent to understanding the current state of AI.
- seizethecheese 3y ago
  The publishing of this article was paid for with the intent of furthering a16z’s reputation. I think addressing their reputation is relevant.
herval 3y ago
a16z took decades to build a reputation and less than a year to toss it in the fire. It's hard to take their current discourse around anything seriously (they constantly publish think pieces on hype topics like AI or games).
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
BlackjackCF 3y ago
I think a16z and other SV companies got rich by being lucky in their investments in a low interest rates environment. Maybe they then bought into their own hype, or they’ve trapped themselves in overpromises to the people they’ve raised money from, and that’s why they’re now pumping crypto. They have no other options. I’m curious to see what happens in the next couple of years and which big VC firms will remain given the current economy…

tikkun 3y ago

Yes. I feel there should be some kind of anti-list of people who dumped SPACs and ICOs on the public. I personally feel it was pretty gross behavior (in many, but not all, cases), and the people who did the egregious ones mostly knew at the time that they were doing a zero sum wealth transfer to themselves. I personally avoid working with people who were involved in ICOs and SPACs where at the time of issuance a reasonable analysis could've shown that it was grossly overpriced to the public investors it was sold to (because in those cases, I believe that the issuer themselves should've known, and shouldn't have proceeded).

whimsicalism 3y ago
e: Removed, not sure I really agree with what I wrote on further reflection
- AJ007 3y ago
  That just isn't a reasonable statement. No one forces someone to participate in a ponzi scheme. The problem with SPACS is these were companies that did not go the IPO route because they would not pass SEC approval. Companies should go public even if they are unlikely to survive, but what we saw was mostly fraud. They received absurd valuations based on exaggerated growth claims combined with imaginary non-GAAP accounting -- things you can't do in an IPO. Some of these participants will get in trouble. Enforcement is not immediate. a16z is probably going to end up in a lot of trouble over their cryptocurrency shenanigans. I think these guys pretty much burned their reputation in exchange for things like owning a $177m house in Malibu. The consequences will be felt by everyone, not just the shitco and shitcoin hucksters.
  - whimsicalism 3y ago
    Fair enough, I didn't realize SPACs were effectively an end-run around SEC approval & GAAP accounting - and I worded too strongly for what was effectively an uninformed take.
  - ibejoeb 3y ago
    Burning rep for wealth is kinda an SV trope, though, right? It's "fuck you money."
ftxbro 3y ago
> the people who did the egregious ones mostly knew at the time that they were doing a zero sum wealth transfer to themselves sorry we can't all be dirt farmers in USA we got to get that bag or we die from medical cost EDIT: everyone downvoting me knows it is true
- bee_rider 3y ago
  Lots of people out there have decent middle class careers working in technical roles outside the FOMO-based-startup sector.
sroussey 3y ago
I have the data. What would be a good UI for it? For example: https://embarc.com/capital/leadership/chamath-palihapitiya https://embarc.com/capital/leadership/chamath-palihapitiya
- tikkun 3y ago
  A list, ranked by person/sponsor, ranked by total value reduction across all SPACs they did since some time point (merger? before then?), and normalized for multiple compression by looking at the ratio of some overall public tech index between that date and now (so that they're not overly penalized by multiple compression from higher interest rates). Either presented as a list on a web page or a list in an infographic/image. Overall show how much wealth public investors have lost in aggregate from investing with that person, normalized to general tech stock market declines. How much did they lose relative to the market. Their alpha, or negative alpha, I suppose.

bowsamic 3y ago

Also not a fan after one of their members went on twitter saying that all non STEM education should be eradicated

hackernoteng 3y ago

You should never be a "believer" or trust ANY VC. They are blood suckers who only want to make 10x their money

snewman 3y ago
This is oversimplified at best. Not all VCs are created equal. A broad-brush characterization like this removes any incentive for VCs to behave well (if everyone will assume the worst of you, why bother trying to build a good reputation), and discourages entrepreneurs from vetting their investors (why bother, if they're all equally bad).
- rvz 3y ago
  They don't care. The goal for all VCs is to make large returns from startups, Otherwise they underperform. VCs know that 90% of these startups fail and will make sure that they are highly unlikely to lose. Even if it means dumping on retail at higher prices via selling SAFEs in 'crowdfunding campaigns'.
seizethecheese 3y ago
And are willing to fund 9 failures… nobody else will do that and it’s impossible without gunning for the 10x return.

jjtheblunt 3y ago

that's nothing to be sorry about

dpflan 3y ago

I mean, the `canon` here is not created by experts in AI. It is to put something on the internet to make a16z look legit on AI and get traffic.

moinnadeem 3y ago
I wouldn't go so far. I know the authors quite well, and as someone who has multiple publications in machine learning confeerences (and started a PhD in ML), they know their stuff well.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- dpflan 3y ago
  OK, thanks for reassuring.
lazzlazzlazz 3y ago
The piece speaks for itself. It’s very strong.
- dpflan 3y ago
  OK, thanks for reassuring.

mediaman 3y ago

a16z's investment thesis completely centers around finding the next bagholder for their investments. They don't care about building enduring businesses that make them a lot of money because the businesses are actually driving that much value creation. They care about creating a hype cycle and dumping before the tide goes out and their investments crash on someone else's balance sheet. None of them could get on a podcast and say anything remotely rational or intelligent about their crypto investments: it was all pump and dump. In one interview, their head of crypto investments main value claim was "monetizing the sharing of your home wifi," and after some pushback resorted to deference to authority by saying the founders they invest in went to the right schools and nobody else could understand because "they weren't in the room." These are smart people who couldn't articulate a clear value. They obviously didn't believe any of it and just saw an opportunity to promote a Dutch tulip mania. Good fund for con artist "entrepreneurs" though. Same deal for Chamath and his SPACs. There's increasing hesitation among builders to take money from funds that have strayed this far from long-term value creation, because once they get addicted to short-term pump and dump profits and chasing the latest thing, it's hard to go back to supporting actual builders.

jjoonathan 3y ago
> None of them could get on a podcast and say anything remotely rational or intelligent > main value claim was "monetizing the sharing of your home wifi," Let's see, we have a big stagnant incumbent monopoly, a last-mile moat that allows them the monopoly, and a proposed strategy for attacking the moat. Most ISPs have a "no-sharing" clause, but it isn't difficult to brainstorm potential workarounds: seeding connections into high-density locations, netflix boxes, even possibly a legislative play in a sympathetic area. Of course, the crux is in the execution of the workaround, but I'd expect this to have some complexity to it and I wouldn't expect a random a16z podcast host to necessarily have details at that resolution. I certainly wouldn't call them an idiot for not having all the details handy. You seem pretty darn sure that it's a prima-facie idiotic idea, however. Can you back that up and explain your reasoning? Or are you just not remotely rational or intelligent enough to imagine a business that doesn't already exist? (See, I can be an asshole too!)
- 3y ago

pcbro141 3y ago

You don't have to be a believer in a16z to find this list of AI resources useful.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> don't have to be a believer in a16z to find this list of AI resources useful One wonders why the authors published with them, as well as what down-round portfolio company a16z are using this to shill.
- SkyMarshal 3y ago
  I doubt there are any down-round AI portfolio companies right now. It's too hot.
- robotresearcher 3y ago
  It’s a list of links to websites. Not a journal or book.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

ramraj07 3y ago

Their crypto scams look like child's play compared to their 350MM investment into Adam Neumann AGAIN. Like whaaat? Were "Liz" Holmes and Martin Shrkeli not available? Or did SBF not satiate you enough?

boeingUH60 3y ago
They are ready to pump another stock again.

dekhn 3y ago

Do you include other parts of a16z like their biology investments? Do you believe the bio folks are doing scamming and wealth extraction (beyond the normal VC scamming and wealth extraction)? Or is it guilt-by-association, simple being in a16z when another part of the company did something dumb is enough to write them off?

rvz 3y ago

Oh sweet summer child. VCs exist to make money. They do not care what industry it is, unless it makes them a giant return.

SkyMarshal 3y ago

The submission has nothing to do with what you're complaining about. It's just a review of key papers, writings, and courses that are most pertinent to understanding the current state of AI.

seizethecheese 3y ago
The publishing of this article was paid for with the intent of furthering a16z’s reputation. I think addressing their reputation is relevant.

herval 3y ago

a16z took decades to build a reputation and less than a year to toss it in the fire. It's hard to take their current discourse around anything seriously (they constantly publish think pieces on hype topics like AI or games).

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

BlackjackCF 3y ago

I think a16z and other SV companies got rich by being lucky in their investments in a low interest rates environment. Maybe they then bought into their own hype, or they’ve trapped themselves in overpromises to the people they’ve raised money from, and that’s why they’re now pumping crypto. They have no other options. I’m curious to see what happens in the next couple of years and which big VC firms will remain given the current economy…