4 ms·

Matching private funding brings the decision making lever to private funders, creating a mechanism to extract tax dollars with minimal government discretion and

Matching private funding brings the decision making lever to private funders, creating a mechanism to extract tax dollars with minimal government discretion and would be a process ripe for abuse by those with significant capital. One person's gatekeeping is another person's stewardship and due diligence

newsclues 1y ago
Governments would never deploy capital in ways that are stupid, corrupt or gatekeeping. One person’s stewardship and due diligence is another’s person’s definition of fraud wealth transfer and crime.
- TheOtherHobbes 1y ago
  Nor would VCs, obvs. How long does it take to get a Series A round, and how many bureaucratic hoops do petitioners have to jump through?
  - newsclues 1y ago
    Easier for government to collect more taxes than it is for VCs to raise more after either fail and go broke.
- exe34 1y ago
  > One person’s stewardship and due diligence is another’s person’s definition of fraud wealth transfer and crime. Yes, that why you then buy the government and fire everybody who's investigating your many crimes. Much easier that way.
- miltonlost 1y ago
  Yay subjectivism means no one is right!!!! Definitions are meaningless!!!
christkv 1y ago
In comparison to just giving money today? Just look at the number of failed green projects in the EU where somehow the executives got rich and nothing got built or if built failed to deliver. At least with matching the private sector has to put a eur down for each it receives and the fund would own participations in ventures.
tomatocracy 1y ago
Another model would be for the EIB to commit money to an investment fund and then run a tender process to select a private sector firm to manage the fund. At the individual investment level, give that manager the usual discretion to invest and manage that VC funds have and pay them a market rate with an appropriate fee structure to do it. You could also insist on the manager raising a certain minimum amount of matching private sector money to "keep them honest".

newsclues 1y ago

Governments would never deploy capital in ways that are stupid, corrupt or gatekeeping. One person’s stewardship and due diligence is another’s person’s definition of fraud wealth transfer and crime.

TheOtherHobbes 1y ago
Nor would VCs, obvs. How long does it take to get a Series A round, and how many bureaucratic hoops do petitioners have to jump through?
- newsclues 1y ago
  Easier for government to collect more taxes than it is for VCs to raise more after either fail and go broke.
exe34 1y ago
> One person’s stewardship and due diligence is another’s person’s definition of fraud wealth transfer and crime. Yes, that why you then buy the government and fire everybody who's investigating your many crimes. Much easier that way.
miltonlost 1y ago
Yay subjectivism means no one is right!!!! Definitions are meaningless!!!

christkv 1y ago

In comparison to just giving money today? Just look at the number of failed green projects in the EU where somehow the executives got rich and nothing got built or if built failed to deliver. At least with matching the private sector has to put a eur down for each it receives and the fund would own participations in ventures.

tomatocracy 1y ago

Another model would be for the EIB to commit money to an investment fund and then run a tender process to select a private sector firm to manage the fund. At the individual investment level, give that manager the usual discretion to invest and manage that VC funds have and pay them a market rate with an appropriate fee structure to do it. You could also insist on the manager raising a certain minimum amount of matching private sector money to "keep them honest".