Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

VC isn't VC anymore

anildash.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 226 posts

Re: VC isn't VC anymore

#111

Post by aliasxneo »

keeda wrote: post #103
aliasxneo wrote: post #28

I've been in an interesting spot the last few months. I've pitched probably two dozen or so VCs and, and while almost every case showed interest, it was quickly followed by "rules" and "desires" that were antithetical to the product. The product I am building is a decentralized trust system. The word "trust" is literally in the name. It requires very specific decisions and a very specific organizational and legal str…

I think the problem is that decentralization is almost by definition antithetical to the ability to capitalize on something. As you indicated, decentralization means diffusion of control and power, which are essential to capitalize on that thing. Why would a VC or any capitalist invest money if they cannot see a way to earn back multiples? Sure you could make some money, but nowhere near the monopoly profits everyone…

Well said. To be fair, there is a proposed healthy income stream to the company proper, and the investors are buying equity in the company (at relatively low scale, >$20M ARR). But that's sort of an "old school" play and it seems most VCs want more than just equity. Or if they do take equity, it comes with some insane pump and dump plan that would destroy the very thing we're building.

But I think the broader point I'm making is that what _is_ making all of the money nowadays is increasingly unethical and counter-productive to society. For example, see Kalshi and co. That, in our experience, is what the VCs are in all of the rage for right now, and as I said it's completely antithetical to our vision.

Re: VC isn't VC anymore

#112

Post by aliasxneo »

shimman wrote: post #94
aliasxneo wrote: post #28

I've been in an interesting spot the last few months. I've pitched probably two dozen or so VCs and, and while almost every case showed interest, it was quickly followed by "rules" and "desires" that were antithetical to the product. The product I am building is a decentralized trust system. The word "trust" is literally in the name. It requires very specific decisions and a very specific organizational and legal str…

Are you able to say the product you're working on? It sounds really interesting.

See this other thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49553649

Re: VC isn't VC anymore

#113

Post by ifwinterco »

bix6 wrote: post #25

I’m a VC and agree with much of this. The mega firms have totally warped VC and the desire for massive cash appreciation has led to a host of bad characters getting involved. I still love working with early stage companies but it is hard to cut your own lane when these mega groups control so many aspects of the stack and have such outsized capital and political influence. There are so many issues destroying early sta…

Hate to sound like a Marxist but... this is what happens when capital has this much power concentrated in so few people. Eventually the system eats itself.

If you're in the right elite at the right time though, you can make a lot of money while everything falls apart underneath

Re: VC isn't VC anymore

#114

Post by JumpCrisscross »

jansport123 wrote: post #72
reasonableklout wrote: post #69

Wow, TIL a16z hired the NYC subway guy as a partner purely as a political stunt. This on top of the $115M in the midterms, them no longer legally being a VC firm, and recent discussion on dark patterns in their portfolio [1]. I'm inclined to agree with the thesis of the article especially with regards to this firm. Looking forward to the other articles in the series. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49416055

a16z has always struck me as the shadiest vc - i associate them with NFT's, crypto and god knows what. They personify the amorality of chasing money over anything (Maybe indicative of SV culture these days in general).

They are. The fact that they LPs escape any peril for financing nonsense morals and returns is something of a marketing miracle.

Re: VC isn't VC anymore

#115

Post by testdummy13 »

keeda wrote: post #103
aliasxneo wrote: post #28

I've been in an interesting spot the last few months. I've pitched probably two dozen or so VCs and, and while almost every case showed interest, it was quickly followed by "rules" and "desires" that were antithetical to the product. The product I am building is a decentralized trust system. The word "trust" is literally in the name. It requires very specific decisions and a very specific organizational and legal str…

I think the problem is that decentralization is almost by definition antithetical to the ability to capitalize on something. As you indicated, decentralization means diffusion of control and power, which are essential to capitalize on that thing. Why would a VC or any capitalist invest money if they cannot see a way to earn back multiples? Sure you could make some money, but nowhere near the monopoly profits everyone…

"Why would a VC or any capitalist invest money if they cannot see a way to earn back multiples?"

Why did Andrew Carnegie invest in building public libraries? Surely it wasn't because he was expecting a capital return.

The oligarchs (at least some of them) used to feel some responsibility to the betterment of man. It really seems like today's billionaires really only care about money and power and nothing else.

Re: VC isn't VC anymore

#116

Post by cm2012 »

quaintdev wrote: post #91
bix6 wrote: post #25

I’m a VC and agree with much of this. The mega firms have totally warped VC and the desire for massive cash appreciation has led to a host of bad characters getting involved. I still love working with early stage companies but it is hard to cut your own lane when these mega groups control so many aspects of the stack and have such outsized capital and political influence. There are so many issues destroying early sta…

Sometimes I wonder if people will one day wake up and just ditch all the tech. That's seems to be the only way to be out of this mess.

Lol that would lead to billions of deaths

Re: VC isn't VC anymore

#117

Post by cjkaminski »

bix6 wrote: post #76
cjkaminski wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on my experience on the fundraising side, I'm inclined to agree with your perspective. One small nit to pick: I think policy changes can happen. However, it's hard for me to imagine meaningful change occurring before a catastrophic event. How big would the blast radius be? Obviously no one knows, but I hope it's closer in scope to "The Collapse of Silicon Valley Bank" as opposed to "The Collapse of Lehman Broth…

I don’t really have hope because big money controls politics. Everything gets steered towards capital’s interest instead of humanity’s.

At the Federal level, absolutely. I could imagine that California and New York could work together to affect meaningful change. It would still be tough because specialty finance regulation is unlikely to generate the type of constituent response usually required for government action, but it's not impossible.

That said, reform would be a Herculean task under the best conditions. Effective change would never be a "one and done" operation. It would be great to have a non-profit like the Electronic Frontier Foundation to carry the mantle.

Re: VC isn't VC anymore

#118

Post by aliasxneo »

testdummy13 wrote: post #115
keeda wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the problem is that decentralization is almost by definition antithetical to the ability to capitalize on something. As you indicated, decentralization means diffusion of control and power, which are essential to capitalize on that thing. Why would a VC or any capitalist invest money if they cannot see a way to earn back multiples? Sure you could make some money, but nowhere near the monopoly profits everyone…

"Why would a VC or any capitalist invest money if they cannot see a way to earn back multiples?" Why did Andrew Carnegie invest in building public libraries? Surely it wasn't because he was expecting a capital return. The oligarchs (at least some of them) used to feel some responsibility to the betterment of man. It really seems like today's billionaires really only care about money and power and nothing else.

As an olive branch, I came in connection with a group (mostly out of Asia) that seems to be more connected by the day (meaning I keep making more mutual connections). They have a very specific vision for capital aimed at funding generational companies whose vision aligns with bettering humanity rather than exploiting it.

They are out there, but unfortunately very much on the fringe because it's difficult to raise money with that ethos.

Re: VC isn't VC anymore

#119

Post by monknomo »

psadauskas wrote: post #57
sghiassy wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s the second gilded age Hopefully this one will pass, just as the first did

The first one passed with a lot of regular people losing their homes, their jobs, and even their lives. I wish just for once we could have the wealthy elites get their comeuppance without it also screwing over everyone else.

there were substantial crashes and booms during the gilded age as well, it wasn't uncommon to go bust and lose a house before the great depression. The panic of `73 is pretty comparable with the great depression, for example

Re: VC isn't VC anymore

#120

Post by tistoon »

palata wrote: post #2

Let's keep praying for fewer and fewer regulations, it's going great! I didn't know that VCs were ever "not cancer", I've always known them like that. Also my experience with startups is that it is a big scam for employees, but I understand it's not always the case (maybe it depends on where in the world?). I have been an early employee in multiple startups that got the founders rich, and what I got from the stocks d…

Just move to EU, you will have all the regulations you want (maybe even more) :-)
Post reply on HN