3 ms·

There should be, but the regulation that A16Z is mentioning is Andreessen's longstanding fight over IPOs and SPACs. I don't necessarily agree with him (there i

There should be, but the regulation that A16Z is mentioning is Andreessen's longstanding fight over IPOs and SPACs. I don't necessarily agree with him (there is room for improvement, but we made these regulations due to the bubble in the 90s and 2000s), but he's been very open about this for at least 15 years now.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> the regulation that A16Z is mentioning is Andreessen's longstanding fight over IPOs and SPACs The idea that SOX is what’s keeping SpaceX and OpenAI private should have died after the JOBS Act’s failure. But I guess SPACS were a nice Covid bailout for Wall Street.
- alephnerd 1y ago
  I agree with you! But Andressen's contention ain't about OpenAI or SpaceX - it's about money pits like Kong, Envoy, or Illumio that should have IPOed or SPACed in 2019-21 but have founders who chose to remain private because they would have been screwed over by the public market. From an A16Z leadership perspective, they have a significant roster of 2011-19 vintage startups that they would have preferred to list so they could redeploy capital (and make their carry), but didn't because listing sucks if you're a founder (as Pat pointly elucidated on multiple occasions during 20-22 while raising his growth round). And their valuations are too high so later stage investors push back in board meetings. As yk, it's business - we're all looking for our own net benefits, but some are more let's say "personalist" about their positions. And to reiterate, I agree with your stance and point - I'm just trying to voice the other (imo unjustified and greedy) PoV that explains some of the statements and actions coming out of these guys. It's not like I have many places to kvetch without career ending implications - I can only annoying Dan P enough times
  - givemeethekeys 1y ago
    “Redeploy capital” by making you and I bag holders of smelly excrement.
    - alephnerd 1y ago
      If you have nothing constructive to add, don't respond at all.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

> the regulation that A16Z is mentioning is Andreessen's longstanding fight over IPOs and SPACs The idea that SOX is what’s keeping SpaceX and OpenAI private should have died after the JOBS Act’s failure. But I guess SPACS were a nice Covid bailout for Wall Street.

alephnerd 1y ago
I agree with you! But Andressen's contention ain't about OpenAI or SpaceX - it's about money pits like Kong, Envoy, or Illumio that should have IPOed or SPACed in 2019-21 but have founders who chose to remain private because they would have been screwed over by the public market. From an A16Z leadership perspective, they have a significant roster of 2011-19 vintage startups that they would have preferred to list so they could redeploy capital (and make their carry), but didn't because listing sucks if you're a founder (as Pat pointly elucidated on multiple occasions during 20-22 while raising his growth round). And their valuations are too high so later stage investors push back in board meetings. As yk, it's business - we're all looking for our own net benefits, but some are more let's say "personalist" about their positions. And to reiterate, I agree with your stance and point - I'm just trying to voice the other (imo unjustified and greedy) PoV that explains some of the statements and actions coming out of these guys. It's not like I have many places to kvetch without career ending implications - I can only annoying Dan P enough times
- givemeethekeys 1y ago
  “Redeploy capital” by making you and I bag holders of smelly excrement.
  - alephnerd 1y ago
    If you have nothing constructive to add, don't respond at all.