Live data from Hacker News

On Grouponzi

parislemon.com

41–43 of 43 posts

Re: On Grouponzi

#41
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a little weasely, because the people calling Groupon a Ponzi scheme tend to talk about how minimal their competitive advantage and technological "moat" is. Google can build stuff. Why'd they try to buy this?

I haven't been one of those calling it a Ponzi scheme or any other con, because it pretty obviously isn't; it has problems and I doubt it is sustainable, but not for those reasons. (Megan McArdle on http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/05/why-does... "One study found that 32% of Groupon merchants lost money (with restaurants faring worst) and 40% said they wouldn't do it again; even people who made money…

> It is usually easier to modify working code than to write something from scratch, if my suspicion is right, I expect Google will launch its own Groupon-like service integrated into its other offerings eventually.

https://www.google.com/offers

Re: On Grouponzi

#43
post #36
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're a very young business, they're spending a lot of money building their economic fortress. The fact that they aren't profitable is surprising, but for such a young company not too surprising. Ok, I'll give you that. Maybe this is money well spent. I think you will see arguments both way on this one. I personally don't think it is. Isn't this something that the investors decide? I mean, it's not like the founder…

I'll be honest, I'm probably much less qualified than you to say whether their money is being well spent. I'm just betting that the investors, who are pretty savvy, do know whether their financials are good. Of course, you're suggesting that the investors are in this because they believe future investors will pay them back, and so on, but I think the people investing in Groupon are doing so for solid reasons. 'Even i…

I'm just betting that the investors, who are pretty savvy, do know whether their financials are good.

You should probably stay far away from Wall St for your own good. The savviness of the investors should be a warning sign, not one that instills trust. Remember, in an IPO, they are the ones on the other side of the handshake. They have every incentive to fool you.

As for your other points. A ponzi scheme is like Bernie Madoff where you pay off early investors with the money from later investors. I don't believe being open with how the money works would change that. Pyramids are usually where members are pressured to get even more members because a percentage of the new hires' sales goes to the person who brought them in. The bottom of the pyramid cannot get their investment back because they run out of "greater fools". It's all a bit confused because if you buy into Groupon you also get ownership of a business which may or may not be worth something.

We really can argue about the semantics of these labels but really what it comes down to for me are these two questions: Is this a healthy business, and have the founders acted in the best interest of the business? To me the answers are I don't think so and absolutely not. I don't trust an executive team that would allow 90% of a non-profitable company's runway to go into their own pocket with my money.

They've acted in their own self interest to which many would say "whatever, it was a fair trade". I want people the people who think that way to realize that sometimes we restrict trades that are "fair" regardless of how stupid you are for getting into them. Roulette is a losing game but it is a fair game. We also restrict and regulate it heavily.

Anyway, I think we're in agreement on this: it's really interesting to talk about. :-)

Post reply on HN