1/ Thread: "A Silicon Valley Ponzi Scheme"
Thanks to @chamath for laying this out in Social Capital's 2018 annual letter.
I've always appreciated his outspokenness.
This is creating a big bill that will soon come due...
But it's not who you think (that does), and the dynamics we’ve entered is in many ways creating a dangerous, high stakes Ponzi scheme.
Someone has to pay for the outrageous costs of this style of growth. Will it be VCs?
Likely not.
Eg: VCs habitually invest in one another’s companies during later rounds, bidding up rounds to valuations that allow for generous markups on their funds' performance.
if you’re a VC with a $200 million dollar fund, you’re able to draw $4million each year in fees.
Most funds never return enough profit for managers to see a dime of carried interest.
If u can show marked up paper returns & then parlay those returns into a newer, larger fund—say $500 million—you now have a fresh $10 million a year to use as you see fit.
There’s some deep misalignment here...
Partly why American healthcare is so expensive is bcos insurers, who play a key middleman role in setting prices for medical care, have a 2-sided biz model:
High costs allow them to charge higher premiums, allowing them to pull steadily more and more money out of patients’ and payers’ pockets.
In the end, both, patients and payers are the ones who end up as bag holders footing the bill.
The same thing is happening in today’s venture world.
Just as insurers’ biz model translates to higher costs of patient care,
So if its not VCs, who ends up holding the bag?
It’s still not who you’d expect.
In some cases, high prices may even work to their advantage.
Unlike the other pass-the-buck schemes
The real bill ends up getting shuffled outta sight to 2 other groups.
The 1st as u may guess are early stage funds’ limited partners, particularly future limited partners investing into the next fund.
Marking up Fund IV to raise money for more mgmt fees out of Fund V is so effective bcos fundraising can happen much faster than the long & difficult job of building businesses & creating real enterprise value
The second group of people left holding the bag is far more tragic: the employees at startups.
Although originally helpful as a way to incentivize and reward employees for working hard for an uncertain outcome,
Overall, you can understand how this arrangement endures:
Those companies then go spend the money on more user growth, often in zero-sum competition w/ one another.
What is the antidote here? Its 2-fold.
The 2nd is to break away from the MLM scheme that the VC-LP-user growth game has become.
It’s time to wait patiently, as the air is slowly let out of this bizarre Ponzi balloon created by the venture capital industry.
More from Tech
The entire discussion around Facebook’s disclosures of what happened in 2016 is very frustrating. No exec stopped any investigations, but there were a lot of heated discussions about what to publish and when.
In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.
In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.
This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.
In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.
The story doesn\u2019t say you were told not to... it says you did so without approval and they tried to obfuscate what you found. Is that true?
— Sarah Frier (@sarahfrier) November 15, 2018
In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.
In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.
This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.
In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.
You May Also Like
Today's headlines about the new IPCC report on climate change are beyond scary: "The planet is on a fast path to destruction. The media must cover this like it’s the only story that matters." I left my career in tech to focus on climate change. Here's what I've learned so far...
Climate change poses one of the greatest threats humanity has ever faced. While it is nearly impossible to comprehend the magnitude of the challenge, the problem itself is quite straightforward: There’s too much CO2 in the atmosphere.
Most efforts to combat climate change, including today’s carbon markets, suffer from the same fatal flaw: They focus on what’s called avoidance—the prevention of future, additional greenhouse-gas emissions. They rarely deal with pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere.
Getting to zero emissions is an important goal, but cutting emissions alone will not reverse climate change. To safeguard our future, we need to remove the more than one trillion tonnes of CO2 we’ve already added.
As futuristic as it sounds, there are many ways to take CO2 out of the atmosphere, including to regenerative agriculture, afforestation, biochar, marine permaculture, BECCS, mineral carbonation, direct-air capture, and more. https://t.co/Eqagfi1YVK has for more info on each.
Climate change poses one of the greatest threats humanity has ever faced. While it is nearly impossible to comprehend the magnitude of the challenge, the problem itself is quite straightforward: There’s too much CO2 in the atmosphere.
Most efforts to combat climate change, including today’s carbon markets, suffer from the same fatal flaw: They focus on what’s called avoidance—the prevention of future, additional greenhouse-gas emissions. They rarely deal with pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere.
Getting to zero emissions is an important goal, but cutting emissions alone will not reverse climate change. To safeguard our future, we need to remove the more than one trillion tonnes of CO2 we’ve already added.
As futuristic as it sounds, there are many ways to take CO2 out of the atmosphere, including to regenerative agriculture, afforestation, biochar, marine permaculture, BECCS, mineral carbonation, direct-air capture, and more. https://t.co/Eqagfi1YVK has for more info on each.
