151–160 of 184 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why do I hate Chamath? >Let's look at the sh he dumped on retail with his abysmal SPAC track record I do not see why one would feel animosity towards Chamath for this reason. Was there fraud involved? Otherwise, all investors are liable for doing their own due diligence.
Nobody in finance holds a high opinion of Chamath.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And you don't think they'd be squealing like stuck pigs in the blogosphere if that were the case? There isn't even anything like that on Blind currently, but there sure are a lot of people with no skin in this deal whining about it to high heaven. This is not a winning attitude. $20B for Groq just normalized $1B for AI startups in general. Maybe less concern trolling here and more building something is in order?
My assumption is employees are mostly out on holidays since the deal was known widely only on Christmas, and so they’re busy with their personal lives, quietly discussing this issue with trusted coworkers, and if there are serious problems, they are coordinating a lawsuit instead of saying something they shouldn’t in public. You should be asking why no one has dispelled the criticisms of how employee equity is treate…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s just it. We’ve entered a new era. Big companies don’t need your startup. They only need your smart guys. Just those few guys. You keep the rest of your engineers and figure out what to do with them. And lately, the answer has been, “wind it all down”. This sucks so bad for most of their employees. But it’s a signal to the labor market: Be very honest about what you are when you’re considering working at an AI…
> But it’s a signal to the labor market: Or... Maybe we should start to think about how we let corporations get bigger and bigger? What happens if an entity (read: company) becomes so valuable, that it is basically indestructible? Does it have the power to change politics to their discretion? And as such, also influence the legislative? I find that highly concerning.
Unfortunately, the time to be having these conversations was 40 years ago.
But you know the old saying: the next best time is right now.
It is, sadly, a near-impossibility that we could get decent antitrust under the current administration. But if we techies, as a sector, were able to pull ourselves together, genuinely recognize that the level of consolidation we have is very bad, and start collectively advocating for real change—for something more like what Lina Khan was doing under Biden, reversing the Reagan-era shift to the intellectually and morally bankrupt Chicago School interpretation of antitrust, and going back to actually forcing companies to prove that acquisitions will be good for everyone else, rather than forcing opponents to prove that they'll be bad in very specific ways...
Then we might have a chance to make real change, over the course of the next few years.
This has nothing to do with antitrust. Not like the current administration is going to enforce it anyways. Nvidia simply wants Groq’s tech and leadership without the burden of 500+ employees.
In an America with robust, sane antitrust, first of all, a company as big as Nvidia probably never exists in the first place. Second of all, if it does, an "acquihire" like this will have to pass regulatory muster, regardless of whether it's a full-on corporate acquisition.
Because in an America with robust, sane antitrust, if a company as big as Nvidia does exist, it is operating under fairly tight strictures as a company with heavy market dominance. It does not get to just act like any other company.
That's what antitrust law is for.
I don't think you can treat owners of the same shares differently in the way this is suggesting. The VC shareholders and the employee shareholders are probably on equal footing and getting the same price. VCs will own preferred but I doubt that is enough to windfall them at the expense of the common shareholders. So if VCs are getting paid a certain share price, employees with vested stock almost certainly are gettin…
> owners of the same shares differently it’s true, you can’t. however the VCs and the employees don’t own the same shares. even the VCs in different rounds don’t own the same shares. where TFA analysis falls short is assuming employees have to be paid out at all. since the execs are moving over, there’s definitely some equity being traded in this “non-exclusive licensing deal” but it doesn’t have to involve common st…
It does bring up a curious question - what happens to the Groq equity owned by the leadership team that's being hired by Nvidia? And/or VC equity?
If they're all being paid, then is Nvidia left holding that equity? Or is it being returned to Groq (the company)?
One of two things would seem to be true:
- Nvidia now owns a big chunk of Groq
- Remaining investors in Groq now own a lot more of the company (on a percentage basis)Earlier quoted context omitted.
but if it does, will it mean we are in the endgame. More and more value extraction by fewer and fewer people and entities under noble or complex reasoning.
ok? and?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But it’s a signal to the labor market: Or... Maybe we should start to think about how we let corporations get bigger and bigger? What happens if an entity (read: company) becomes so valuable, that it is basically indestructible? Does it have the power to change politics to their discretion? And as such, also influence the legislative? I find that highly concerning.
Well, exactly. Unfortunately, the time to be having these conversations was 40 years ago. But you know the old saying: the next best time is right now. It is, sadly, a near-impossibility that we could get decent antitrust under the current administration. But if we techies, as a sector, were able to pull ourselves together, genuinely recognize that the level of consolidation we have is very bad , and start collective…
Now, how do you stop that?
Companies don’t need to buy startups, they just need the expert that startup hired. Once they have the experts, everything else takes care of itself.
Point is, antitrust works fine. It just fixes the wrong problem. That was really the problem with khan. She never really figured out that the technologies have passed the legal framework by. She should have tried to come up with solutions to the problem of monopolizing intellectual capital rather than the problem of monopolizing markets or intellectual property.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
ok? and?
And then capitalism crumbles because the delicate bargain between labor and capital it was predicated on has been destroyed.
That's what y'all sound like.