3 ms·
> So net net the chances of success from passive angel investing are only slightly better than playing the lottery. Is this right? An organization running a lo
by bee_rider 2y ago
> So net net the chances of success from passive angel investing are only slightly better than playing the lottery.
Is this right? An organization running a lottery—their whole job is to run a lottery, they’ve staked their reputation on the fact that they pay out to winners. The one with a reputation to defend is the one paying out.
The company angel investor is dealing with a company that, ultimately, wants to either get into position to sell some service, or wants to get bought. Their raison d'etre isn’t being a reliable payer-out of winners. I’d expect the lottery to be much more honest.
- johndevor 2y ago> Is this right? OP made an unbacked assertion and that can be ignored as such.
- bee_rider 2y agoEh, this is a site for chit-chatting, so I don’t expect perfect proofs generally. Assertions that are backed only by personal experience and hard-to-verify anecdotes are fine IMO.
- thr0w 2y ago> Eh, this is a site for chit-chatting, so I don’t expect perfect proofs generally. Assertions that are backed only by personal experience and hard-to-verify anecdotes are fine IMO. Source? Footnotes?
- bee_rider 2y agoLol, right? Getting away from the original posts, but: The reflex to ask for sources probably comes from a good place. But, it has become too immediate nowadays online, to the point where (in my opinion) it gets in the way of discussion. The request for a source should generally include a note on how the fact being questioned will impact the overall argument. Friendly conversations shouldn’t become asymmetrical homework generating exercises.