5 ms·

Very much doubt it’s generational wealth. I’m not sure how much people think open source companies are worth, but the path to VC-scale profitability is incredib

by tyre 2mo ago

Very much doubt it’s generational wealth. I’m not sure how much people think open source companies are worth, but the path to VC-scale profitability is incredibly rare. My guess is that Amazon wants official hosted versions and doesn’t want to go through something like the Redis fiasco with licensing. In that case, they ended up having to support their own development anyway (with Valkey), so they might as well just buy the team. DuckDB team probably gets a nice package and pay bump, but it’s really unlikely they’re getting hundreds of millions from this.

deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
yurishimo 2mo ago
How much do you really need for generational wealth? In my opinion, if you're more than 10 years away from retirement and received a surprise $1 million, you're setup for the rest of your life and your children as well assuming they don't immediately blow it all when you die (that's what a good trust should be for). Assuming historical returns, your money doubles roughly every 7 years, so within the rest of your lifetime, that 1 million should turn into at least 8. That's an extremely comfortable upper-middle-class lifestyle on the interest payments alone. If your children don't spend it all, your grandchildren would easily have private jet money by the time their parents retire.
- asib 2mo ago
  1 mil is not generational wealth in the US. It is a big chunk of money, no doubt. It’ll buy a reasonable 2-3 bedroom house in the city I live in, with nothing left over. No one’s definition of generational wealth involves not touching the money for two generations…
  - deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]
  - fwip 2mo ago
    The median home price is around $400K. You don't have to live somewhere stupid expensive.
    - jshen 2mo ago
      Sure, but that's not generational wealth.
      - fwip 2mo ago
        We must be operating on different definitions. Generational wealth means you have enough money to meaningfully improve the lives of your kids and give them a leg-up on life. A million dollars is enough to buy a house for each of your 2.5 kids. If getting a million dollars wouldn't affect how much money you can leave your kids, you already have generational wealth.
        MeetingsBrowser 2mo ago
        The commonly accepted definition of generational wealth ranges from around 1.5 to 5 million per child.
        fwip 2mo ago
        I can only find sources that define it the way I said, but I'm sure that folks who think a million dollars isn't enough to buy a house disagree.
        asib 2mo ago
        Generational wealth generally is used to mean something like you and at least your children can live very comfortably off of investment income for the rest of your lives, I.e. none of you have to work for a living. That’s why sibling’s def of 1.5-5m per child is much closer to the commonly understood meaning. We can debate “live comfortably” if you want, but no 4.5 people are doing that from the investment proceeds of 1m. What you are describing is kind of more like social mobility.
        2mo ago
  - slfnflctd 2mo ago
    I have to agree, yurishimo's assumption of returns is wildly optimistic. At a more sane expected return of 5% annually, you get $50k a year to live off of to just keep what you have (or rather, watch it slowly erode in value due to inflation). That is basically a one person income, maybe two adults if you pinch pennies and live in a crappy apartment or a low-end house in a midwestern suburb. You can get a lot more lucky with a million bucks than you can with 10k if you gamble, but there are no guarantees. Risk tolerance is the most impactful variable. For those in the low risk tolerance group, I think you'd need at least 2 mil these days. And that's with being frugal, as well as probably not having much left over for kids.
  - topaz0 2mo ago
    A house you own outright is already generational wealth
- 1123581321 2mo ago
  To do that, you would have to never touch the money and invest aggressively. Most wouldn’t do that unless they didn’t need the money, i.e. already rich so not newfound wealth. You would also have to train your kids to responsibly use the money without demonstrating it, as you’d just be hoarding it. People don’t have a good track record there, either. I think the best you could do generationally with a million would be to try to invest moderately and draw down a small percentage (2-3%) to demonstrate fully considered use of the money. This would keep you in a middle class income but give you more ability to donate charitably, vacation together, let one spouse retire earlier, solve a financial crisis for a child, etc. Letting them in on the thinking would give them a good chance to handle a high six/low seven figure inheritance, depending on how the investing goes.
- nixon_why69 2mo ago
  Assuming historical returns might be a little unsafe at a point in time near the peak of a bubble popping.
- pstuart 2mo ago
  I'd agree with that sentiment but that number would be more like $5M (which is nothing in the context of this acquisition). Inflation is not going to relent and having enough to actually enjoy some of that payout to have pseudo FU money and leave enough invested for children and grandchildren (a well-managed trust). Buying a house in desirable areas is going to be in the ~ $1M range, college is going to be hundreds of thousands, etc.
- menaerus 2mo ago
  Assuming you're investing aggressively and not touching that money for the next 20 years, with the nominal return of 6% per year, adjusted for the inflation rate of 3% per year, 1M will increase to 1.8M. Not sure how you came up with 8M.
  - intuitionist 2mo ago
    3% real return is… pretty pessimistic. You can about get that on long TIPS.
- MeetingsBrowser 2mo ago
  > How much do you really need for generational wealth? Common definition is somewhere between 1.5 to 5 million per child.
  - topaz0 2mo ago
    Says who? Ive never heard this and can't find anyone saying this.
    - tyre 2mo ago
      How much do you need for your children to not work or provide complete financial freedom (i.e. can buy a home, raise a family, etc. without thinking about the income of their job)? That is the "generational" in generational wealth. You need more than $1.5m today should be $6m by the time they're 20. Depending on inflation, cost-of-living, tuition, etc. that might be enough. People talking about generational wealth aren't saying, "what if they live a frugal life in the Topeka suburbs."
      - topaz0 2mo ago
        Generational wealth is just wealth that survives to the next generation. It doesn't have to be extravagant wealth when it gets there to count. Also wealth does not start at the ability to live an extravagant life without a salary... You're wealthy way before that point.
        MeetingsBrowser 2mo ago
        This is probably the disconnect. Technically any asset transferred to the next generation is “generational wealth”. But in the context of a startup sale, when you say generational wealth almost nobody assumes you mean the ability to pass a few thousand down. The common understanding is that you have enough money that future generations do not need to worry about money, assuming they maintain an average or slightly above average lifestyle and use the money responsibly.
- jimbokun 2mo ago
  You said 10 years away from retirement so that’s closer to 2 million than 8.
- _zoltan_ 2mo ago
  1 mil as generational wealth? what?
- 62951413 2mo ago
  $1M is a newly built condo in the East Bay with HOA >$800/month. Not even an 80 year old 1,300 sqft house in the same area.
- jongjong 2mo ago
  $1 million net worth is massive. You can buy a house in a remote place, invest in companies and live off of the investment perpetually without having to work.
hobofan 2mo ago
> I’m not sure how much people think open source companies are worth, but the path to VC-scale profitability is incredibly rare. MotherDuck, a semi-competitor of theirs has raised $100mil in funding. DuckLabs has reportedly taken no external funding (so all ownership is with the founders) and was profitable with 30+ employees. On the sidelines, other companies behind beloved open source products, like Astral, Astro, Bun are getting bought left and right. With that as a backdrop, I think they should have been able to get quite a good payout.
- datadrivenangel 2mo ago
  DuckLabs is the company that does consulting and DuckDB development, the DuckDB foundation actually owns DuckDB the project. The DuckDB foundation owns some equity in MotherDuck, which is a data lakehouse platform based on DuckDB, and all three have been moving closely together in making DuckDB better locally as well as in the role of a query engine that really threatens a lot of amazon's role in data lakehouses. DuckDB in the hands of a good team means that you can use AWS almost only for storage, instead of using any of the managed services.

by tyre 2mo ago

deleted 2mo ago

[deleted]

yurishimo 2mo ago

How much do you really need for generational wealth? In my opinion, if you're more than 10 years away from retirement and received a surprise $1 million, you're setup for the rest of your life and your children as well assuming they don't immediately blow it all when you die (that's what a good trust should be for). Assuming historical returns, your money doubles roughly every 7 years, so within the rest of your lifetime, that 1 million should turn into at least 8. That's an extremely comfortable upper-middle-class lifestyle on the interest payments alone. If your children don't spend it all, your grandchildren would easily have private jet money by the time their parents retire.

asib 2mo ago
1 mil is not generational wealth in the US. It is a big chunk of money, no doubt. It’ll buy a reasonable 2-3 bedroom house in the city I live in, with nothing left over. No one’s definition of generational wealth involves not touching the money for two generations…
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
- fwip 2mo ago
  The median home price is around $400K. You don't have to live somewhere stupid expensive.
  - jshen 2mo ago
    Sure, but that's not generational wealth.
    - fwip 2mo ago
      We must be operating on different definitions. Generational wealth means you have enough money to meaningfully improve the lives of your kids and give them a leg-up on life. A million dollars is enough to buy a house for each of your 2.5 kids. If getting a million dollars wouldn't affect how much money you can leave your kids, you already have generational wealth.
      - MeetingsBrowser 2mo ago
        The commonly accepted definition of generational wealth ranges from around 1.5 to 5 million per child.
        fwip 2mo ago
        I can only find sources that define it the way I said, but I'm sure that folks who think a million dollars isn't enough to buy a house disagree.
      - asib 2mo ago
        Generational wealth generally is used to mean something like you and at least your children can live very comfortably off of investment income for the rest of your lives, I.e. none of you have to work for a living. That’s why sibling’s def of 1.5-5m per child is much closer to the commonly understood meaning. We can debate “live comfortably” if you want, but no 4.5 people are doing that from the investment proceeds of 1m. What you are describing is kind of more like social mobility.
      - 2mo ago
- slfnflctd 2mo ago
  I have to agree, yurishimo's assumption of returns is wildly optimistic. At a more sane expected return of 5% annually, you get $50k a year to live off of to just keep what you have (or rather, watch it slowly erode in value due to inflation). That is basically a one person income, maybe two adults if you pinch pennies and live in a crappy apartment or a low-end house in a midwestern suburb. You can get a lot more lucky with a million bucks than you can with 10k if you gamble, but there are no guarantees. Risk tolerance is the most impactful variable. For those in the low risk tolerance group, I think you'd need at least 2 mil these days. And that's with being frugal, as well as probably not having much left over for kids.
- topaz0 2mo ago
  A house you own outright is already generational wealth
1123581321 2mo ago
To do that, you would have to never touch the money and invest aggressively. Most wouldn’t do that unless they didn’t need the money, i.e. already rich so not newfound wealth. You would also have to train your kids to responsibly use the money without demonstrating it, as you’d just be hoarding it. People don’t have a good track record there, either. I think the best you could do generationally with a million would be to try to invest moderately and draw down a small percentage (2-3%) to demonstrate fully considered use of the money. This would keep you in a middle class income but give you more ability to donate charitably, vacation together, let one spouse retire earlier, solve a financial crisis for a child, etc. Letting them in on the thinking would give them a good chance to handle a high six/low seven figure inheritance, depending on how the investing goes.
nixon_why69 2mo ago
Assuming historical returns might be a little unsafe at a point in time near the peak of a bubble popping.
pstuart 2mo ago
I'd agree with that sentiment but that number would be more like $5M (which is nothing in the context of this acquisition). Inflation is not going to relent and having enough to actually enjoy some of that payout to have pseudo FU money and leave enough invested for children and grandchildren (a well-managed trust). Buying a house in desirable areas is going to be in the ~ $1M range, college is going to be hundreds of thousands, etc.
menaerus 2mo ago
Assuming you're investing aggressively and not touching that money for the next 20 years, with the nominal return of 6% per year, adjusted for the inflation rate of 3% per year, 1M will increase to 1.8M. Not sure how you came up with 8M.
- intuitionist 2mo ago
  3% real return is… pretty pessimistic. You can about get that on long TIPS.
MeetingsBrowser 2mo ago
> How much do you really need for generational wealth? Common definition is somewhere between 1.5 to 5 million per child.
- topaz0 2mo ago
  Says who? Ive never heard this and can't find anyone saying this.
  - tyre 2mo ago
    How much do you need for your children to not work or provide complete financial freedom (i.e. can buy a home, raise a family, etc. without thinking about the income of their job)? That is the "generational" in generational wealth. You need more than $1.5m today should be $6m by the time they're 20. Depending on inflation, cost-of-living, tuition, etc. that might be enough. People talking about generational wealth aren't saying, "what if they live a frugal life in the Topeka suburbs."
    - topaz0 2mo ago
      Generational wealth is just wealth that survives to the next generation. It doesn't have to be extravagant wealth when it gets there to count. Also wealth does not start at the ability to live an extravagant life without a salary... You're wealthy way before that point.
      - MeetingsBrowser 2mo ago
        This is probably the disconnect. Technically any asset transferred to the next generation is “generational wealth”. But in the context of a startup sale, when you say generational wealth almost nobody assumes you mean the ability to pass a few thousand down. The common understanding is that you have enough money that future generations do not need to worry about money, assuming they maintain an average or slightly above average lifestyle and use the money responsibly.
jimbokun 2mo ago
You said 10 years away from retirement so that’s closer to 2 million than 8.
_zoltan_ 2mo ago
1 mil as generational wealth? what?
62951413 2mo ago
$1M is a newly built condo in the East Bay with HOA >$800/month. Not even an 80 year old 1,300 sqft house in the same area.
jongjong 2mo ago
$1 million net worth is massive. You can buy a house in a remote place, invest in companies and live off of the investment perpetually without having to work.

hobofan 2mo ago

> I’m not sure how much people think open source companies are worth, but the path to VC-scale profitability is incredibly rare. MotherDuck, a semi-competitor of theirs has raised $100mil in funding. DuckLabs has reportedly taken no external funding (so all ownership is with the founders) and was profitable with 30+ employees. On the sidelines, other companies behind beloved open source products, like Astral, Astro, Bun are getting bought left and right. With that as a backdrop, I think they should have been able to get quite a good payout.

datadrivenangel 2mo ago
DuckLabs is the company that does consulting and DuckDB development, the DuckDB foundation actually owns DuckDB the project. The DuckDB foundation owns some equity in MotherDuck, which is a data lakehouse platform based on DuckDB, and all three have been moving closely together in making DuckDB better locally as well as in the role of a query engine that really threatens a lot of amazon's role in data lakehouses. DuckDB in the hands of a good team means that you can use AWS almost only for storage, instead of using any of the managed services.