3 ms·
Many say that, in Silicon Valley, there is "no penalty for failure". I'll be a heretic for a bit, and say this is part of the reason why we don't have Hyperloop
by apsec112 13y ago
Many say that, in Silicon Valley, there is "no penalty for failure". I'll be a heretic for a bit, and say this is part of the reason why we don't have Hyperloop.
Software companies have huge payoff ratios. You invest $1M in 5,000 companies, and hopefully one of them is Facebook. The payoff on a big success is thousands to one. If you give $1M to some douchebag who spends it on hookers and blow, no big deal.
Infrastructure companies have much lower payoff ratios. You might invest $1B in the hope of getting back $10B. But for that to be profitable, the success probability must be at least 10%. Which means you have to be pretty sure they aren't going to just blow it all on parties.
Now, from the founder's perspective, building an infrastructure company is really hard, and blowing $1B on parties is really easy. So if there's no penalty for failure - no social cost to wasting the money, and not trying very hard to build the hardware - that's what almost everyone winds up doing. Infrastructure demands large capital investment, and large capital investment demands some form of accountability.
- notahacker 13y agoNever mind the failures due to coke and hookers. The big upside to the SV early stage investments is that startups that are responsibly run but don't seem to have a natural route to profitability can probably end up selling the people or tech as assets to someone else in the sector. Investors expect positive returns on some of the "near misses" in their portfolio. By contrast, if you can't make an operating profit on the Hyperloop having paid all the research and infrastructure costs (either it doesn't reliably work, or is just widely considered too unpleasant to ride on a regular basis) you end up with miles of very visible scrap metal.