3 ms·
Exactly. The classic, ostensible rationale for taking on large VC rounds is to accelerate growth. Not to cause growth in the first place. If a company's entire
by jonnathanson 12y ago
Exactly.
The classic, ostensible rationale for taking on large VC rounds is to accelerate growth. Not to cause growth in the first place. If a company's entire business model depends on spending massive wads of capital on things like loss leaders, advertising, unsustainable pricing, etc., then it's not really a business. It's a gimmick. It's a race to the exit.
These sorts of plays can and will cause negative externalities in the markets in which they operate. They "disrupt" those markets for a short while. The disruption comes not from changing the fundamentals of the market, so much as temporarily and violently turning pricing on its head by ignoring the profit equation altogether. That's unsustainable by definition. (And it's not to be confused with the legitimate practice of running at a loss, or breakeven, by plowing available profits back into growth).
- api 12y agoTo the extent that this is true, it's one of the major social criticisms of Silicon Valley-- that it's a Ponzi financial scheme where the game is to spawn massive but deeply unsustainable growth juggernauts and then sell them to greater fools like the public market.