4 ms·

> That’s when SBF told Sequoia about the so-called super-app: “I want FTX to be a place where you can do anything you want with your next dollar. You can buy bi

> That’s when SBF told Sequoia about the so-called super-app: “I want FTX to be a place where you can do anything you want with your next dollar. You can buy bitcoin. You can send money in whatever currency to any friend anywhere in the world. You can buy a banana. You can do anything you want with your money from inside FTX.” > Suddenly, the chat window on Sequoia’s side of the Zoom lights up with partners freaking out. > “I LOVE THIS FOUNDER,” typed one partner. > “I am a 10 out of 10,” pinged another. > “YES!!!” exclaimed a third. Seriously? This is what gets VCs excited?

bag_boy 3y ago
That looks like political posturing on chat. They probably knew what was going to happen and wanted to be on team ‘yes’
mrDmrTmrJ 3y ago
What I think's fascinating about this quote is we've US VC back multiple attempts to create WeChat in the US. (Specifically an "Everything app + payments + chat + universal login.") Both the Sequioa response to this pitch. And basically the same pitch/goal that Elon raised money on for the Twitter/X deal - and what he's trying to build. I'm very curious to see if Apple/Meta rotate out of an attempt to have separate apps for different functions (e.g. Messenger separate from Facebook, or Apple Pay separate from iMessage) and rotate back toward building an integrated "SuperApp." Certainly the "WeChat of the US" would be infinitely valuable.
- kibwen 3y ago
  Apple already has this: it's called iOS. What do people think an app platform is?
gojomo 3y ago
This is similar to Musk's vision for eX-Twitter, and something that WeChat & other apps have come closer to achieving in other markets.
bambax 3y ago
This sounds a lot like the everything app of Musk. Or Paypal in 1999.
vidarh 3y ago
Having been in the room during and after investment committee meetings at a much smaller VC, the thing to realise is that most VC's are inundated by founders who do not understand the economics of the VC business. If you go in to a VC and tell them that you can likely do a $50m trade sale in 3 years time, you're telling them you're a waste of time, because odds are still that you will fail before that, and you're not betting on a big enough outcome that if you're successful their return will offset enough of the failures. When I worked for a VC, if you weren't pitching 100m+ revenue within 5-10 years, it was a near instant no. Not because we believed you'd achieve that, because most likely you wouldn't just fail to achieve that but you'd be bankrupt before then. But because if you're not even setting your sights high enough, you're not even in the game, and we needed founders to set their sights high enough that the few companies who survive has a shot at high enough exits. But most founders who pitch do not understand that. Their pitch decks are defensive, and full of worst case estimates. The VC's worst case is that you'll be bankrupt; the proportion of companies who survive and live on as "zombies" that eventually produce a low trade sale produce returns way too low to offset the bankruptcies - founders that aim that low are wasted opportunities for VCs. That goes a long way to explain why they'd be excited about someone who is selling an idea of some crazy expansive plan: Whether or not they though it realistic, they were seeing someone unusual enough to dare voice a crazy level of ambition. He only really needed to convince them he'd try, and make them think that the potential returns outweighed whatever increased risk they saw. After the umpteenth founder telling you how they're minimising risk and showing your forecasts of a worst case scenario that are irrelevant to the VC fund, I can see that being exciting. I've lost count of the number of founders we had to explain to that while their defensive plans probably increased their chance of their company surviving, if you go for VC investment, being conservative and defensive is not going to convince anyone, or they'd be retail bankers instead. You're effectively pitching a guaranteed loss rather than a likely loss but a chance at a big prize. Even a totally crazy pitch where it looks like they're some chance at a big prize is going to be more exciting than a pitch where the founder is telling you how best case he'll still not earn you enough. Of course the problem with this is that it also plays straight into the hands of delusional or crooked people willing to just make shit up to try to sell an idea they have no idea how to make work, and punishes a lot of otherwise brilliant founders who just don't understand what is expected by a VC.
moogly 3y ago
Zombo.com

bag_boy 3y ago

That looks like political posturing on chat. They probably knew what was going to happen and wanted to be on team ‘yes’

mrDmrTmrJ 3y ago

What I think's fascinating about this quote is we've US VC back multiple attempts to create WeChat in the US. (Specifically an "Everything app + payments + chat + universal login.") Both the Sequioa response to this pitch. And basically the same pitch/goal that Elon raised money on for the Twitter/X deal - and what he's trying to build. I'm very curious to see if Apple/Meta rotate out of an attempt to have separate apps for different functions (e.g. Messenger separate from Facebook, or Apple Pay separate from iMessage) and rotate back toward building an integrated "SuperApp." Certainly the "WeChat of the US" would be infinitely valuable.

kibwen 3y ago
Apple already has this: it's called iOS. What do people think an app platform is?

gojomo 3y ago

This is similar to Musk's vision for eX-Twitter, and something that WeChat & other apps have come closer to achieving in other markets.

bambax 3y ago

This sounds a lot like the everything app of Musk. Or Paypal in 1999.

vidarh 3y ago

Having been in the room during and after investment committee meetings at a much smaller VC, the thing to realise is that most VC's are inundated by founders who do not understand the economics of the VC business. If you go in to a VC and tell them that you can likely do a $50m trade sale in 3 years time, you're telling them you're a waste of time, because odds are still that you will fail before that, and you're not betting on a big enough outcome that if you're successful their return will offset enough of the failures. When I worked for a VC, if you weren't pitching 100m+ revenue within 5-10 years, it was a near instant no. Not because we believed you'd achieve that, because most likely you wouldn't just fail to achieve that but you'd be bankrupt before then. But because if you're not even setting your sights high enough, you're not even in the game, and we needed founders to set their sights high enough that the few companies who survive has a shot at high enough exits. But most founders who pitch do not understand that. Their pitch decks are defensive, and full of worst case estimates. The VC's worst case is that you'll be bankrupt; the proportion of companies who survive and live on as "zombies" that eventually produce a low trade sale produce returns way too low to offset the bankruptcies - founders that aim that low are wasted opportunities for VCs. That goes a long way to explain why they'd be excited about someone who is selling an idea of some crazy expansive plan: Whether or not they though it realistic, they were seeing someone unusual enough to dare voice a crazy level of ambition. He only really needed to convince them he'd try, and make them think that the potential returns outweighed whatever increased risk they saw. After the umpteenth founder telling you how they're minimising risk and showing your forecasts of a worst case scenario that are irrelevant to the VC fund, I can see that being exciting. I've lost count of the number of founders we had to explain to that while their defensive plans probably increased their chance of their company surviving, if you go for VC investment, being conservative and defensive is not going to convince anyone, or they'd be retail bankers instead. You're effectively pitching a guaranteed loss rather than a likely loss but a chance at a big prize. Even a totally crazy pitch where it looks like they're some chance at a big prize is going to be more exciting than a pitch where the founder is telling you how best case he'll still not earn you enough. Of course the problem with this is that it also plays straight into the hands of delusional or crooked people willing to just make shit up to try to sell an idea they have no idea how to make work, and punishes a lot of otherwise brilliant founders who just don't understand what is expected by a VC.

moogly 3y ago

Zombo.com