7 ms·
Previously (launch): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42377018 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42377018
by bckmn 1y ago
Previously (launch): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42377018 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42377018
- 3D30497420 1y agoOnly 6 months ago? Oof.
- tptacek 1y agoMost startups fail, and you should be so lucky as to have one fail quickly and decisively. It's like landing on Free Parking in Monopoly.
- apgwoz 1y ago> It's like landing on Free Parking in Monopoly. I have no clue what you’re trying to convey with this analogy? “Free Parking” is different in virtually every household.
- tptacek 1y agoI was not thinking about random house rules in the analogy.
- toast0 1y agoStandard rules free parking is a no-op; you get nothing and pay nothing. It just prolongs the inevitable.
- tptacek 1y agoYes, that's what I was referring to.
- apgwoz 1y agoBut then this analogy doesn’t hold… Has there ever been a startup in history where it’s break even everywhere? Investors don’t get their money back, customers (hopefully!) are made whole, and the founders and employees are now out of a job and _perhaps_ didn’t get their final pay check depending on how bad it is.
- tptacek 1y agoYeah, you're missing my point. Given most startups fail, the question isn't "at the end of the day do you still get a paycheck for your failed startup", it's "how much of your life did you burn on that failed startup". Since we're talking about a specific startup whose founders are participants here, I think we can do without the ghoulish stuff about them not making payroll or whatever; "winding down" implies they're failing in an orderly way.
- apgwoz 1y agoI got your point (after the Free Parking clarification). (To be clear, my comment wasn’t on Double specifically. No clue how strapped for cash they are while winding down. They seem to be doing right be people (paying fees and such), and that’s great.) Finally, maybe it’s unintentional, but you seem to be implying that “it’s not worth burning your life on a failed startup,” which seems like a bad take. If you spend 5 years on a startup that shows promise but ultimately doesn’t pan out, is that always worse than spending 6 months on a startup that fails fast? First, this would be wildly hard to prove, and second, there are obviously counter examples.
- axus 1y agoI like that they had already written their "destructor function": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42379135 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42379135
- ezekg 1y ago> You can initiate a cash withdrawal or transfer your assets to another brokerage. We ask that you do this by July 31, 2025. Seems to still require manual work, though? With less than 30 days to do so...
- sethhochberg 1y agoWhen you work with Apex (or really any other technology bridge to the traditional financial world, Q2's Helix is common for traditional banking, Apex Clearing is common for stock trading, etc) they require you think about things like this during your implementation. Its not quite as turnkey as something like opening a Stripe account; your implementation will need to demonstrably pass a playbook of tests before your partner will allow you to play in real financial transactions - and those tests typically include things like account closure or program shutdown. Basically, the traditional financial services partners who give startups access to these legacy networks know their clients are startups who might not fully understand the space or might want to cut corners. They're good at making sure they're protected against their clients' behavior, and in most cases legally the end users are actually the customer of the financial services company, the startup will be considered a "deposit broker" instead of a "bank" etc. Its been longer since I've touched the stock broker side so I'm fuzzy on the specific terminology but its similar there.
- NetOpWibby 1y agoYou've told me enough to let me know I don't wanna do this. Traditional finance is secure for a reason! Good they have strong requirements.