Subprime ‘unicorns’ that do not look a billion dollars
1–10 of 91 posts
Re: Subprime ‘unicorns’ that do not look a billion dollars
#2Non-paywall link:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newss...
Re: Subprime ‘unicorns’ that do not look a billion dollars
#3It's kind of amusing that so many in Silicon Valley rail against Wall Street and "financial engineering" when the biggest "winners" of this tech boom are products of Wall Street and "financial engineering."
Re: Subprime ‘unicorns’ that do not look a billion dollars
#4Crucial note: This piece is written by Mike Mortiz of Sequoia. It appears to be in tandem with his recent appearance on Bloomberg News (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-17/sequoia-s-...)
Re: Subprime ‘unicorns’ that do not look a billion dollars
#5> whose co-inventor committed suicide two years ago after telling his wife that it was not effective
I feel... strange about reading this in an article when it is framed as evidence of anything. People's reasons for committing suicide are often complex and to mention that here seems... improper for reasons that I can't quite put my finger on.
Re: Subprime ‘unicorns’ that do not look a billion dollars
#6> whose co-inventor committed suicide two years ago after telling his wife that it was not effective I feel... strange about reading this in an article when it is framed as evidence of anything. People's reasons for committing suicide are often complex and to mention that here seems... improper for reasons that I can't quite put my finger on.
The rate of suicide for founders is significant, it is not talked about enough.
Re: Subprime ‘unicorns’ that do not look a billion dollars
#7> whose co-inventor committed suicide two years ago after telling his wife that it was not effective I feel... strange about reading this in an article when it is framed as evidence of anything. People's reasons for committing suicide are often complex and to mention that here seems... improper for reasons that I can't quite put my finger on.
The rate of suicide for founders is significant, it is not talked about enough.
True, although he was not a founder
Re: Subprime ‘unicorns’ that do not look a billion dollars
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
The rate of suicide for founders is significant, it is not talked about enough.
True, although he was not a founder
I think it can be extended to "[the suicide rate amongst] people who give a huge part of their life onto a particular entity or product".
Re: Subprime ‘unicorns’ that do not look a billion dollars
#9I don't know what to think of Theranos.
On one hand, it is tackling a huge, important market and appears or appeared to have something legitimate.
On the other, so many of its tactics seem designed more to increase valuation than successfully bring its technology to market. It's obscenely celebrity board completely devoid of any relevant experience. A ridiculous $9b valuation on a paltry (relatively) $400m raised. 100s of SKUs on its product list when it should be perfecting on a just a few. The incessant PR campaign around its founder. Giving Jim Cramer an exclusive? Refusing to participate in WSJ article. Spending a whole day with Harvard Fellows. Hiring slick crisis handlers. Threatening whistleblowers. I'm sure the incumbents wouldn't be that excited about a patent-protected entrant into the market but it doesn't seem like they are the ones mounting the attack. It either works or it doesn't right? And it'll be easy to figure that out. Can someone help me out?
Re: Subprime ‘unicorns’ that do not look a billion dollars
#10Startup L. Jackson has a good tweet about it:
> 4/ You'd likely do better financially, on average, joining a Series A company, AND have more career upside.
> Source: https://twitter.com/StartupLJackson/status/65515425472269107...
Why anybody would want to be an employee at a unicorn company is crazy to me, especially in the world of ultra-inflated valuations.
If you join a huge public company you'll get liquid stock, at a real valuation, along with lots of salary and perks. The stock can't 10x, but companies will generally give you pretty large grants so if the stock goes up 20-50% you'll probably get a nice bump in your total compensation.
If you want to join a startup, you are much better off joining a ~10-20MM one. You still get a salary, though maybe not as high as at a unicorn or public company. However, it is much easier for a ~10-20MM company to 10x in value than a 1B company, and if the smaller company does 10x you'd be a somebody at a ~100MM company rather than a nobody at a ~10B one.