2 ms·

ZIRP was the era of where any tech startup was seen as a good investment no matter how stupid. Take any stupid business that doesn't work, say you do it with te

ZIRP was the era of where any tech startup was seen as a good investment no matter how stupid. Take any stupid business that doesn't work, say you do it with tech, get millions thrown at you. Then it was blockchain - same story, conventional business that doesn't work, but with blockchain - boom, instant money. Now the same with AI. > you beg people with experience in software to believe you're trending up Considering how much stupid shit I've seen funded (that quietly "incredible journey'd" away or folded by now) I don't think much begging was involved. Capital was desperate to find a place, no matter how ill-advised. Everyone in the startup food chain enjoyed it. > Do you genuinely believe DAUs/MAUs stopped mattering once crpyto, then AI, arrived? What started mattering is a clear path to monetize said DAUs/MAUs. You can't just show up with (potentially flawed) analytics saying you have DAUs and you're gonna figure out monetization later. Now you need to actually figure it out now and show up with analytics + proof of actually monetizing those users. Well, except if you're selling AI - then it's ok to sell inference at a major loss and figure out monetization later. > collectively ran a con that no investor, board member, or executive noticed for a decade "Investing" in a Ponzi can still be profitable as long as you get out before it collapses. There was a lot of passing around the hot potatoes between VCs too, so a VC can rightfully determine something to be a scam, but still invest if they believe SoftBank will happily hold the bag (and those guys ended up taking a lot of bags).

refulgentis 9mo ago
> "except if you're selling AI - then it's ok to sell inference at a major loss and figure out monetization later" So the dynamic you attributed to ZIRP is alive and well, just wearing different clothes. Your original framework was "ZIRP allowed this, now real capitalism is correcting it." Now it's "this is permanent, it just rotates themes." These are different arguments. > "Investing in a Ponzi can still be profitable as long as you get out before it collapses... a VC can rightfully determine something to be a scam, but still invest" You've just moved the con from engineers to VCs. If investors knowingly played hot potato, then engineers weren't running a grift, they were employees doing jobs while capital played musical chairs above their heads. So which is it: were engineers "deadweight" padding out finished products, or were they ordinary workers caught in a game VCs were knowingly playing? Because "VCs knew it was a scam but invested anyway" is a very different story than "engineers tricked everyone into thinking the product wasn't finished." You're retreating into "everyone knew it was fake."
- Nextgrid 9mo ago
  I'm making the argument that past bubbles like ZIRP, blockchain and now AI have given many engineers the illusion that "engineering" the same product forever is a sustainable endeavor. Turns out that's not the case and with each bubble popping more and more people get a rude awakening. Some are able to jump on another bubble and keep the gravy train going, but might be left in the dust in the next one and so on. If anyone was conned, it's primarily the younger engineers who started their career in those bubbles, were never exposed to the financial realities or even forced to think about it, and now get a very unpleasant wake up call. You may disagree with my argument - but in that case I suggest taking a short position on Bending Spoons & their competitors who appear to be making the same argument and putting their money where their mouth is.
  - refulgentis 9mo ago
    You've fully retreated: You started by calling engineers "deadweight" that Bending Spoons correctly cuts. Now they're victims who were "conned" and given "illusions" and deserve sympathy for their "unpleasant wake up call." These are incompatible framings. Deadweight is culpable. Victims of a con aren't. Which is it? > I suggest taking a short position on Bending Spoons Strip-mining is often profitable. That's not the disagreement. The disagreement is whether "profitable" validates your original framing that the workers being cut are deadweight rather than, by your new admission, ordinary people who were lied to by the actual decision-makers. Note also the lack of understanding of finance, coupled to parroting pop-finance, continues. You're trying valiantly to hammer phrases we all know, into meanings they don't have. They sound epic, and are very "law of nature" feeling. I understand the appeal. Anyways, you cannot short a company without a stock.
    - Nextgrid 9mo ago
      I guess that was poor framing on my part from the beginning; I used the term deadweight meaning overhead that can be cut, not implying culpability one way or another. Which positions are culpable or victims is besides the point here (I have other comments on ZIRP related threads if you are interested, where I do make direct accusations). > ordinary people who were lied to by the actual decision-makers Were they truly lied to? They got paid for years of service. Now whether they got lied to by Bending Spoons denying there will be layoffs I don't know (or whether the lie matters - for all we know they got a fair severance package, at least in places where that is legally mandated?). But for those who started their career in the "good days", I would say they got misled by an environment that rewarded raw engineering without concern for the business outcome of said engineering (and often rewarded over engineering in fundamentally unsustainable businesses). Now the business outcome is suddenly becoming the most important thing and these people are taken by surprise. --- Now it's clear you have some kind of beef with me; I'm either talking complete shit, or I struck a nerve. Maybe a bit of both. Either way I will not pursue this conversation further - best of luck!

refulgentis 9mo ago

> "except if you're selling AI - then it's ok to sell inference at a major loss and figure out monetization later" So the dynamic you attributed to ZIRP is alive and well, just wearing different clothes. Your original framework was "ZIRP allowed this, now real capitalism is correcting it." Now it's "this is permanent, it just rotates themes." These are different arguments. > "Investing in a Ponzi can still be profitable as long as you get out before it collapses... a VC can rightfully determine something to be a scam, but still invest" You've just moved the con from engineers to VCs. If investors knowingly played hot potato, then engineers weren't running a grift, they were employees doing jobs while capital played musical chairs above their heads. So which is it: were engineers "deadweight" padding out finished products, or were they ordinary workers caught in a game VCs were knowingly playing? Because "VCs knew it was a scam but invested anyway" is a very different story than "engineers tricked everyone into thinking the product wasn't finished." You're retreating into "everyone knew it was fake."

Nextgrid 9mo ago
I'm making the argument that past bubbles like ZIRP, blockchain and now AI have given many engineers the illusion that "engineering" the same product forever is a sustainable endeavor. Turns out that's not the case and with each bubble popping more and more people get a rude awakening. Some are able to jump on another bubble and keep the gravy train going, but might be left in the dust in the next one and so on. If anyone was conned, it's primarily the younger engineers who started their career in those bubbles, were never exposed to the financial realities or even forced to think about it, and now get a very unpleasant wake up call. You may disagree with my argument - but in that case I suggest taking a short position on Bending Spoons & their competitors who appear to be making the same argument and putting their money where their mouth is.
- refulgentis 9mo ago
  You've fully retreated: You started by calling engineers "deadweight" that Bending Spoons correctly cuts. Now they're victims who were "conned" and given "illusions" and deserve sympathy for their "unpleasant wake up call." These are incompatible framings. Deadweight is culpable. Victims of a con aren't. Which is it? > I suggest taking a short position on Bending Spoons Strip-mining is often profitable. That's not the disagreement. The disagreement is whether "profitable" validates your original framing that the workers being cut are deadweight rather than, by your new admission, ordinary people who were lied to by the actual decision-makers. Note also the lack of understanding of finance, coupled to parroting pop-finance, continues. You're trying valiantly to hammer phrases we all know, into meanings they don't have. They sound epic, and are very "law of nature" feeling. I understand the appeal. Anyways, you cannot short a company without a stock.
  - Nextgrid 9mo ago
    I guess that was poor framing on my part from the beginning; I used the term deadweight meaning overhead that can be cut, not implying culpability one way or another. Which positions are culpable or victims is besides the point here (I have other comments on ZIRP related threads if you are interested, where I do make direct accusations). > ordinary people who were lied to by the actual decision-makers Were they truly lied to? They got paid for years of service. Now whether they got lied to by Bending Spoons denying there will be layoffs I don't know (or whether the lie matters - for all we know they got a fair severance package, at least in places where that is legally mandated?). But for those who started their career in the "good days", I would say they got misled by an environment that rewarded raw engineering without concern for the business outcome of said engineering (and often rewarded over engineering in fundamentally unsustainable businesses). Now the business outcome is suddenly becoming the most important thing and these people are taken by surprise. --- Now it's clear you have some kind of beef with me; I'm either talking complete shit, or I struck a nerve. Maybe a bit of both. Either way I will not pursue this conversation further - best of luck!