> I don't think that investors (even Andreesen Horowitz) look at ANY investment and think, "Well, some of my investments are going to fail, I can take on this o

> I don't think that investors (even Andreesen Horowitz) look at ANY investment and think, "Well, some of my investments are going to fail, I can take on this one and accept the hit to my returns." I'm not sure that's what the OP was saying. a16z is a $2.5b fund, so spending $100MM is only 4% of their fund. The point that he's making, is that the micro risk gained on just GitHub decreases the macro risk overall the whole portfolio. In other words, keep the assumptions concrete and businesses that utilize those assumptions will flourish. Imagine you're an auto company, and money stops going into road construction, and therefore less people use the roads. A smart auto company may invest in construction companies. The only argument here is now do these constructions really need any extra money to keep them going? (I would argue no, they're already making enough money) In the same vein, does GitHub need more money to be motivated? (the answer is probably no, but as you point out, it's an extremely safe bet) That being said, it doesn't hurt to throw a small percent of your fund into road construction.