3 ms·

> idiots (I'll just burn all this cash and look for new ones or I'll get the most unrealistic valuation possible so I get kicked out of my own company) Doesn't

> idiots (I'll just burn all this cash and look for new ones or I'll get the most unrealistic valuation possible so I get kicked out of my own company) Doesn't sound idiotic to me. So far as anyone has been able to prove, humans live only once. And realistically speaking have about 20 years in which to make money that will determine the level of comfort and luxury they will enjoy for the duration of that single life. If at some point in that 20 years one finds oneself in an environment in which "naive investors" are willing to hand out $10m at a throw on the basis of a physically unworkable idea and a pitch deck, I would strongly advise coming up with physically unworkable ideas and pitch decks. Writing articles about how foolish people are to pursue these ideas does not put money in your wallet, even if it's true.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
arielm 11y ago
This naive view that if is someone is silly enough to throw money at your silly idea you should take it isn't just hurting the current industry by setting unrealistic expectations but will also be the driving force behind the collapse of the unhealthy capital market in the valley. Unrealistic salaries (that completely ignore any roi calculations), ideas that aren't grounded, and the need to get it all done super fast are what's going to cause a drought in capital for tech and then both good and bad ideas will suffer. I urge you to rethink your statement with the future of the industry in mind, not just a single bank account.
- fredkbloggs 11y ago
  Everything you've said is sensible, though I question whether in a cheap money environment investors will stay away if they've been burned. People fall all over themselves to lend money to sovereigns who have defaulted fairly recently, and that at very low interest rates. I would be surprised if people with access to unlimited cheap money will really stay away. That said, even if I agreed with you 100% (and you're certainly right in principle), I would not change my view. That's why I noted that humans live only once and have a short time frame to accumulate money. In the fullness of time, yes, this behavior is harmful. But humans don't live in the fullness of time; they live when they're born. Secure your own future and to hell with the industry's.
  - arielm 11y ago
    > Secure your own future and the hell with the industry's This is just not something I can agree with, regardless how it's twisted. Accumulating a sustainable amount of money isn't as easy as raising a few rounds on a weak idea. It takes a real idea, perseverance, and thinking really long term. The mindset quoted above isn't likely to support any of these requirements. So, really what you'll end up with is a nice house, a pretty car, and a few fake friends while it's all running smoothly. The second you can no longer deliver it all goes away. I might be in the minority here, but I plan to leave my children an empire. Not a house of cards.
    - fredkbloggs 11y ago
      Assets don't just "go away" unless they're encumbered by debt. If you're paying yourself a bloated salary, living frugally, and taking advantage of opportunities to sell things that are ridiculously overvalued, you should not have any trouble building durable wealth in a short time. It's fine to say that you don't like what I'm saying. It's fine to think it's unethical, or that it harms others. But don't suggest that it doesn't work; it very obviously does.
      - arielm 11y ago
        You're right in your approach. However, in the capital market founders don't usually get to dictate their salaries or suck in more of the loot than is absolutely necessary. That's why VCs keep a good portion of the control. Now this may not be the case always, so yes, a short term plan could work. But I doubt it works reliably enough to be turned into a rule.
analog31 11y ago
I'm inescapably drawn to the idea that selling goofy ideas to cash-heavy investors is a form of short-selling, and every "hot" market has a fair amount of short-selling activity going on. In fact it got me wondering why the typical startup founder isn't primarily engaged in shorting their own stock, given that the majority of startups fail. The answer has to be that the founder has enough of their own skin in the game, and limited access to pocket the cash themselves, that they can't profit from this ploy.
- bluejekyll 11y ago
  This would be illegal in a public company, for any executive to bet against the company, and in the private case would probably be breaking some part of the contract signed with the investors. They get to hedge your bets, if you want to hedge yours you'll need to find some other vehicle.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

arielm 11y ago

This naive view that if is someone is silly enough to throw money at your silly idea you should take it isn't just hurting the current industry by setting unrealistic expectations but will also be the driving force behind the collapse of the unhealthy capital market in the valley. Unrealistic salaries (that completely ignore any roi calculations), ideas that aren't grounded, and the need to get it all done super fast are what's going to cause a drought in capital for tech and then both good and bad ideas will suffer. I urge you to rethink your statement with the future of the industry in mind, not just a single bank account.

fredkbloggs 11y ago
Everything you've said is sensible, though I question whether in a cheap money environment investors will stay away if they've been burned. People fall all over themselves to lend money to sovereigns who have defaulted fairly recently, and that at very low interest rates. I would be surprised if people with access to unlimited cheap money will really stay away. That said, even if I agreed with you 100% (and you're certainly right in principle), I would not change my view. That's why I noted that humans live only once and have a short time frame to accumulate money. In the fullness of time, yes, this behavior is harmful. But humans don't live in the fullness of time; they live when they're born. Secure your own future and to hell with the industry's.
- arielm 11y ago
  > Secure your own future and the hell with the industry's This is just not something I can agree with, regardless how it's twisted. Accumulating a sustainable amount of money isn't as easy as raising a few rounds on a weak idea. It takes a real idea, perseverance, and thinking really long term. The mindset quoted above isn't likely to support any of these requirements. So, really what you'll end up with is a nice house, a pretty car, and a few fake friends while it's all running smoothly. The second you can no longer deliver it all goes away. I might be in the minority here, but I plan to leave my children an empire. Not a house of cards.
  - fredkbloggs 11y ago
    Assets don't just "go away" unless they're encumbered by debt. If you're paying yourself a bloated salary, living frugally, and taking advantage of opportunities to sell things that are ridiculously overvalued, you should not have any trouble building durable wealth in a short time. It's fine to say that you don't like what I'm saying. It's fine to think it's unethical, or that it harms others. But don't suggest that it doesn't work; it very obviously does.
    - arielm 11y ago
      You're right in your approach. However, in the capital market founders don't usually get to dictate their salaries or suck in more of the loot than is absolutely necessary. That's why VCs keep a good portion of the control. Now this may not be the case always, so yes, a short term plan could work. But I doubt it works reliably enough to be turned into a rule.

analog31 11y ago

I'm inescapably drawn to the idea that selling goofy ideas to cash-heavy investors is a form of short-selling, and every "hot" market has a fair amount of short-selling activity going on. In fact it got me wondering why the typical startup founder isn't primarily engaged in shorting their own stock, given that the majority of startups fail. The answer has to be that the founder has enough of their own skin in the game, and limited access to pocket the cash themselves, that they can't profit from this ploy.

bluejekyll 11y ago
This would be illegal in a public company, for any executive to bet against the company, and in the private case would probably be breaking some part of the contract signed with the investors. They get to hedge your bets, if you want to hedge yours you'll need to find some other vehicle.