4 ms·

What about all the people who don’t go on to start their own businesses? Do they not get taught?

by al_borland 1y ago

aspenmayer 1y ago
What about folks who go on to be teachers? Sounds like a pyramid scheme with extra steps.
- koopuluri 1y ago
  It’s not a pyramid scheme because it’s ultimately grounded in real value: equities in companies, which themselves are grounded in revenue. If someone becomes a teacher, they would earn equity in their own students’ personal tokens. When those teachers eventually realize gains by selling shares, their own teachers (as shareholders) share in that upside too. And if the teaching doesn’t actually create value, then everyone in that chain loses, which keeps the system honest.
  - aspenmayer 1y ago
    You just described a Ponzi scheme. You know that, right? https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/theyre-the-same-picture https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/theyre-the-same-picture
koopuluri 1y ago
This also applies to people who join companies and receive equity as part of their compensation. So initially, it’s most applicable to those who are likely to earn equity in the future — whether by starting a company or joining one. Over time, though, I see it spreading to more domains as venture-backed models expand. For example, more researchers now get equity upside because more companies are being built around various kinds of research.
- al_borland 1y ago
  Why would I want to rob from my future self like that? How many teachers might one have? What good is the equity if all of it is being siphoned off by past teachers. I’d much rather pay a once than have that hanging over my head my whole life. Buy-once cry-once. I could see people on track to get significant equity looking to buy their way out of this indentured servitude.
  - koopuluri 1y ago
    I see it the same way I see selling equity in a company: I want to incentivize people to help me win. I’d only raise from those who grow the pie larger than the share they take. If giving up 1% to a teacher-investor helps me create 10x more value, that’s a fantastic deal. Without factoring in their impact on outcomes, it’s misleading to call that “robbing.” And let’s be clear about what’s actually at stake. If I sell equity in a company for $10M, and a teacher owns 1% of my personal token, they’d receive $100k — only at that exit event. Compare that to owing a bank $200k in student loans right after graduation, regardless of outcomes. It’s also not indentured servitude: there are no guaranteed repayments, I keep full agency, and personal tokens could allow “ejection” of shareholders if needed. Startup founders don’t see themselves as servants of their investors, and neither should students. And honestly, I wouldn’t even want to buy back equity from investors who are actively helping me win. I’d rather keep them incentivized to keep contributing. (Of course, if they stop actively helping me I would want to buy back shares from them because they are deadweight). I think this could be implemented in a way that gives such control to the individual (e.g., you can buy back shares whenever).
    - al_borland 1y ago
      > only at that exit event. What if there is no exit event? So if the student decides to run a profitable company, the teacher that owns a share doesn’t get a cut of the profits? I’d expect the teacher to get a distribution any time the student does. > Startup founders don’t see themselves as servants of their investors, and neither should students. I haven’t founded a startup, but I’ve seen enough startups I’m a customer of take on funding from investors. Incentives change. They nearly always cave to pressure to produce more profit, so the investor can make their money back, even at the expense of the vision for the company or the long term health of the business. They are also more likely to seek an exit than to build and grow the company for the long-haul. That’s the deal when the investor invests. As a student grows, they require different teachers. Your freshman accounting professor isn’t going to be the one helping you sort things out for a billion dollar company. If they are cut off as deadweight, it undermines the whole concept, as they were still a building block to get you to where you are. For teachers, it just feels like a perverse lottery. Go for volume and hope one pays off.

What about all the people who don’t go on to start their own businesses? Do they not get taught?

aspenmayer 1y ago

What about folks who go on to be teachers? Sounds like a pyramid scheme with extra steps.

koopuluri 1y ago
It’s not a pyramid scheme because it’s ultimately grounded in real value: equities in companies, which themselves are grounded in revenue. If someone becomes a teacher, they would earn equity in their own students’ personal tokens. When those teachers eventually realize gains by selling shares, their own teachers (as shareholders) share in that upside too. And if the teaching doesn’t actually create value, then everyone in that chain loses, which keeps the system honest.
- aspenmayer 1y ago
  You just described a Ponzi scheme. You know that, right? https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/theyre-the-same-picture https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/theyre-the-same-picture

koopuluri 1y ago

This also applies to people who join companies and receive equity as part of their compensation. So initially, it’s most applicable to those who are likely to earn equity in the future — whether by starting a company or joining one. Over time, though, I see it spreading to more domains as venture-backed models expand. For example, more researchers now get equity upside because more companies are being built around various kinds of research.

al_borland 1y ago
Why would I want to rob from my future self like that? How many teachers might one have? What good is the equity if all of it is being siphoned off by past teachers. I’d much rather pay a once than have that hanging over my head my whole life. Buy-once cry-once. I could see people on track to get significant equity looking to buy their way out of this indentured servitude.
- koopuluri 1y ago
  I see it the same way I see selling equity in a company: I want to incentivize people to help me win. I’d only raise from those who grow the pie larger than the share they take. If giving up 1% to a teacher-investor helps me create 10x more value, that’s a fantastic deal. Without factoring in their impact on outcomes, it’s misleading to call that “robbing.” And let’s be clear about what’s actually at stake. If I sell equity in a company for $10M, and a teacher owns 1% of my personal token, they’d receive $100k — only at that exit event. Compare that to owing a bank $200k in student loans right after graduation, regardless of outcomes. It’s also not indentured servitude: there are no guaranteed repayments, I keep full agency, and personal tokens could allow “ejection” of shareholders if needed. Startup founders don’t see themselves as servants of their investors, and neither should students. And honestly, I wouldn’t even want to buy back equity from investors who are actively helping me win. I’d rather keep them incentivized to keep contributing. (Of course, if they stop actively helping me I would want to buy back shares from them because they are deadweight). I think this could be implemented in a way that gives such control to the individual (e.g., you can buy back shares whenever).
  - al_borland 1y ago
    > only at that exit event. What if there is no exit event? So if the student decides to run a profitable company, the teacher that owns a share doesn’t get a cut of the profits? I’d expect the teacher to get a distribution any time the student does. > Startup founders don’t see themselves as servants of their investors, and neither should students. I haven’t founded a startup, but I’ve seen enough startups I’m a customer of take on funding from investors. Incentives change. They nearly always cave to pressure to produce more profit, so the investor can make their money back, even at the expense of the vision for the company or the long term health of the business. They are also more likely to seek an exit than to build and grow the company for the long-haul. That’s the deal when the investor invests. As a student grows, they require different teachers. Your freshman accounting professor isn’t going to be the one helping you sort things out for a billion dollar company. If they are cut off as deadweight, it undermines the whole concept, as they were still a building block to get you to where you are. For teachers, it just feels like a perverse lottery. Go for volume and hope one pays off.