4 ms·

$100k is going to a charity one way or another. That's a good thing no matter how you cut it.

foobarqux 12y ago
It doesn't serve the main purpose of the bet which is to find someone with a strong enough conviction about the specific terms to risk $100k.
- fleitz 12y ago
  That's welsher talk, if you make a bet and a person accepts then you have to take the bet or STFU. If you believe the person will not follow through that's one thing, maybe both parties should put $100K in escrow, talking about the purpose of the bet is weak.
  - foobarqux 12y ago
    Maybe he should follow through but the bet isn't interesting anymore.
    - pitt1980 12y ago
      you know what, this guy appears to be betting with a far larger share of his assets than sama is, he's putting his money where his mouth is maybe you shouldn't be so dismissive
- nostrademons 12y ago
  Pretty much everything a startup does is find resources that are underutilized and then utilize them for something outside their main purposes. If it is someone who's donating $100K to charity for publicity...well, that's a pretty neat hack, and one that everybody wins from.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - foobarqux 12y ago
    Fine, well done. But no one should care that Sam Altman bet that we are not in a bubble against someone who doesn't care much one way or the other but wants his name in the paper.
    - mod 12y ago
      I doubt anyone really does care. The only thing I'm really interested in is why sama decided the other bettor had to be a VC. That's a pretty silly requirement. Anyway this isn't a ballsy bet at all, really. Guys on 2p2 (poker forums) routinely make huge proposition bets that are more fun, interesting, and risky than this--occasionally for charity, as well (though not that often). Losing this bet will likely do no more to either bettor than losing a $5 bar wager would do to me. Pony up the cash, shake victor's hand, move on with my day and forget about it.
      - tibbetts 12y ago
        I agree, this bet would make more sense if the other party was a hedge fund manager or someone else with a professional interest in being bearish on tech innovators. No active serious VC who's might have raise a fund or invest at a high valuation is going to bet publicly against the unicorns. Might as well just retire.
    - pg_is_a_butt 12y ago
      why should anyone listen to someone who only posted because they wanted their name in the comments thread? you're an ignorant hypocrite.
- chernevik 12y ago
  The bet is a punctuation point on a discussion. Sam is already taking risk on current valuations, another $100K here or there isn't going to move the needle. The real stakes are reputation for prognostication. And the point to me is getting VCs on the other side of the debate to put a public stake in the ground, and hopefully give their arguments for why. So I don't find this taker particularly interesting. In the context of an industry wide debate, the opinion of someone who doesn't have an audience similar to Sam's doesn't really mean much. Not that they aren't smart, just that they aren't someone influencing the discussion. Which is what this is mostly about. And to say "I take the bet" without any discussion of why really misses the whole point. Of course Sam should take this bet. But I'd suggest that he amend his proposal: Find people with enough audience to change the discussion, who are talking about bubble valuations, and ask them specifically to put a stake in the ground on this.
  - sama 12y ago
    a fair point. i didn't define "VC" well enough. if another VC from a top-tier fund with at least $500MM under management would like to take the bet, i will make the same bet once more.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - howsta 12y ago
      The bet also serves as an interesting hedge for anyone whose net worth is already heavily correlated with the success of the tech sector (which certainly includes VCs). 100k is not enough to really matter to a GP at a 500MM fund, especially if it goes to charity either way. But there are plenty of smaller VCs or even startup founders (including myself) who would do that deal not because they're skeptical of tech's fundamentals, but as a way to counteract exposure to an overall macro/tech downfall.
      - myblake 12y ago
        Not sure I see why this is the case since the money's going to charity.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
dspeyer 12y ago
Am I the only one hoping they have the same favourite charity?
- jrometty 12y ago
  nope :)

It doesn't serve the main purpose of the bet which is to find someone with a strong enough conviction about the specific terms to risk $100k.

fleitz 12y ago
That's welsher talk, if you make a bet and a person accepts then you have to take the bet or STFU. If you believe the person will not follow through that's one thing, maybe both parties should put $100K in escrow, talking about the purpose of the bet is weak.
- foobarqux 12y ago
  Maybe he should follow through but the bet isn't interesting anymore.
  - pitt1980 12y ago
    you know what, this guy appears to be betting with a far larger share of his assets than sama is, he's putting his money where his mouth is maybe you shouldn't be so dismissive
nostrademons 12y ago
Pretty much everything a startup does is find resources that are underutilized and then utilize them for something outside their main purposes. If it is someone who's donating $100K to charity for publicity...well, that's a pretty neat hack, and one that everybody wins from.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- foobarqux 12y ago
  Fine, well done. But no one should care that Sam Altman bet that we are not in a bubble against someone who doesn't care much one way or the other but wants his name in the paper.
  - mod 12y ago
    I doubt anyone really does care. The only thing I'm really interested in is why sama decided the other bettor had to be a VC. That's a pretty silly requirement. Anyway this isn't a ballsy bet at all, really. Guys on 2p2 (poker forums) routinely make huge proposition bets that are more fun, interesting, and risky than this--occasionally for charity, as well (though not that often). Losing this bet will likely do no more to either bettor than losing a $5 bar wager would do to me. Pony up the cash, shake victor's hand, move on with my day and forget about it.
    - tibbetts 12y ago
      I agree, this bet would make more sense if the other party was a hedge fund manager or someone else with a professional interest in being bearish on tech innovators. No active serious VC who's might have raise a fund or invest at a high valuation is going to bet publicly against the unicorns. Might as well just retire.
  - pg_is_a_butt 12y ago
    why should anyone listen to someone who only posted because they wanted their name in the comments thread? you're an ignorant hypocrite.
chernevik 12y ago
The bet is a punctuation point on a discussion. Sam is already taking risk on current valuations, another $100K here or there isn't going to move the needle. The real stakes are reputation for prognostication. And the point to me is getting VCs on the other side of the debate to put a public stake in the ground, and hopefully give their arguments for why. So I don't find this taker particularly interesting. In the context of an industry wide debate, the opinion of someone who doesn't have an audience similar to Sam's doesn't really mean much. Not that they aren't smart, just that they aren't someone influencing the discussion. Which is what this is mostly about. And to say "I take the bet" without any discussion of why really misses the whole point. Of course Sam should take this bet. But I'd suggest that he amend his proposal: Find people with enough audience to change the discussion, who are talking about bubble valuations, and ask them specifically to put a stake in the ground on this.
- sama 12y ago
  a fair point. i didn't define "VC" well enough. if another VC from a top-tier fund with at least $500MM under management would like to take the bet, i will make the same bet once more.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - howsta 12y ago
    The bet also serves as an interesting hedge for anyone whose net worth is already heavily correlated with the success of the tech sector (which certainly includes VCs). 100k is not enough to really matter to a GP at a 500MM fund, especially if it goes to charity either way. But there are plenty of smaller VCs or even startup founders (including myself) who would do that deal not because they're skeptical of tech's fundamentals, but as a way to counteract exposure to an overall macro/tech downfall.
    - myblake 12y ago
      Not sure I see why this is the case since the money's going to charity.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

dspeyer 12y ago

Am I the only one hoping they have the same favourite charity?

jrometty 12y ago
nope :)