3 ms·

Almost by definition right? My Reinforcement Learning metaphor for equity finance driven startups is that they are the exploration process for capital seeking

Almost by definition right? My Reinforcement Learning metaphor for equity finance driven startups is that they are the exploration process for capital seeking perfect ROI. After they find a new high margin process they exploit it to maximum financial return and (they hope) create a new paradigm that placed them as a monopolist or at worst oligopolist. I’d argue this is precisely how major startup financiers view this - thiel explicitly says this. So given that, and given that technology often is a key differentiator for structural change through new processes, it makes sense that evaluations of regulatory capture processes (including patents) would accrue primarily to new entrants. Worth noting though that if you further iterate this capital/tech game, other larger monopolies/oligopolies will accrete these companies and technology too until some social tipping point is reached and the whole thing collapses. I discuss this process as it’s root form in the third proposition of my myth of scarcity paper [1] [1] https://kemendo.com/Myth.pdf https://kemendo.com/Myth.pdf

bumby 3y ago
I like the RL metaphor. Does this imply a corollary that incremental success by exploration is more probable in new spaces but gradually decreases as those spaces get explored?
- AndrewKemendo 3y ago
  Yes that is a logical extension If you think of a three dimensional manifold as the unexplored state space of a new market, then the exploring:exploiting process maps areas of the manifold into “known” and “unknown” It takes effort to explore the manifold in real life and the effort is measured in $/hour. Meaning whomever shows up to a new unexplored manifold with the highest potential work energy will be able to explore/search the space faster unless someone else has a more efficient search/explore or exploit mechanism. I think this would be where “tragedy of the commons” would be relevant
  - bumby 3y ago
    Can you explain the tragedy of the commons connection? Are you implying it erodes when there is a lack of coordination and eventually provides sub-optimal outcomes?
    - AndrewKemendo 3y ago
      It important conceptually to align "commons" with "new markets" because in practice they look the same with respect to consumption. Fishing is my favorite theoretical example here. Assume you are a fisherman looking for fish in the ocean To take an exploration "step" requires work: Acquiring a boat, acquiring fishing tools, having the energy to fish, having time to explore the ocean etc... Once you find a cache of fish, then you switch to exploit by harvesting the fish from the cache This assumes that the fish are not currently the property of someone else, and therefore it is "commons" or a "new market" until claimed by some entity with enough power to exclude others from consumption. The problem is, information in new markets is sparse. By definition you cannot know prior to exploring it, what the size and scope of this fish cache is. However consumption starts PRIOR to the evaluation of the cache and what an appropriate sustainable exploitation rate is because doing so would assume something else: That there is an evaluation of a global optimum for that fish cache as a common resource. Almost no organizations have the incentive to do the above, and history shows that most consumption orgs have narrow near term goals of maximum exploitation. So the groups with the largest amount of energy to expend exploring and then exploiting (aka how much money do you have), will by default monopolize the resource.
      - bumby 3y ago
        Thank you for taking the time to explain. I think my initial confusion comes from conflating the "commons" and "new market without ownership." I don't think they are necessarily the same in terms of the "tragedy of the commmons." I don't see why the "commons" has to have anything "new". Take the example of air pollution. The air is a common resource that people have access to without cost, but it's nothing new. So the predicate that "information in new markets is sparse" doesn't apply. >"Almost no organizations have the incentive to do the above" I would argue that collectives, like the government, have this incentive. Hence the need for regulation.
marcosdumay 3y ago
> Almost by definition right? Well, no, it's a behavioral finding. There is nothing on the market structure stopping consolidating companies to commercialize new tech by themselves. In fact, if you take a naive view of the market, the consolidated companies are the ones with all the structure needed for it, while startups have all kinds of obstacles to get a foot on the door. This is a well known fact, found again and again by several studies. But it is not obvious in any way.

bumby 3y ago

I like the RL metaphor. Does this imply a corollary that incremental success by exploration is more probable in new spaces but gradually decreases as those spaces get explored?

AndrewKemendo 3y ago
Yes that is a logical extension If you think of a three dimensional manifold as the unexplored state space of a new market, then the exploring:exploiting process maps areas of the manifold into “known” and “unknown” It takes effort to explore the manifold in real life and the effort is measured in $/hour. Meaning whomever shows up to a new unexplored manifold with the highest potential work energy will be able to explore/search the space faster unless someone else has a more efficient search/explore or exploit mechanism. I think this would be where “tragedy of the commons” would be relevant
- bumby 3y ago
  Can you explain the tragedy of the commons connection? Are you implying it erodes when there is a lack of coordination and eventually provides sub-optimal outcomes?
  - AndrewKemendo 3y ago
    It important conceptually to align "commons" with "new markets" because in practice they look the same with respect to consumption. Fishing is my favorite theoretical example here. Assume you are a fisherman looking for fish in the ocean To take an exploration "step" requires work: Acquiring a boat, acquiring fishing tools, having the energy to fish, having time to explore the ocean etc... Once you find a cache of fish, then you switch to exploit by harvesting the fish from the cache This assumes that the fish are not currently the property of someone else, and therefore it is "commons" or a "new market" until claimed by some entity with enough power to exclude others from consumption. The problem is, information in new markets is sparse. By definition you cannot know prior to exploring it, what the size and scope of this fish cache is. However consumption starts PRIOR to the evaluation of the cache and what an appropriate sustainable exploitation rate is because doing so would assume something else: That there is an evaluation of a global optimum for that fish cache as a common resource. Almost no organizations have the incentive to do the above, and history shows that most consumption orgs have narrow near term goals of maximum exploitation. So the groups with the largest amount of energy to expend exploring and then exploiting (aka how much money do you have), will by default monopolize the resource.
    - bumby 3y ago
      Thank you for taking the time to explain. I think my initial confusion comes from conflating the "commons" and "new market without ownership." I don't think they are necessarily the same in terms of the "tragedy of the commmons." I don't see why the "commons" has to have anything "new". Take the example of air pollution. The air is a common resource that people have access to without cost, but it's nothing new. So the predicate that "information in new markets is sparse" doesn't apply. >"Almost no organizations have the incentive to do the above" I would argue that collectives, like the government, have this incentive. Hence the need for regulation.

marcosdumay 3y ago

> Almost by definition right? Well, no, it's a behavioral finding. There is nothing on the market structure stopping consolidating companies to commercialize new tech by themselves. In fact, if you take a naive view of the market, the consolidated companies are the ones with all the structure needed for it, while startups have all kinds of obstacles to get a foot on the door. This is a well known fact, found again and again by several studies. But it is not obvious in any way.