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

Dog-walking startup Wag raised $300M, then things got messy

cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 289 posts

Re: Dog-walking startup Wag raised $300M, then things got messy

#171

Post by wp381640 »

seem_2211 wrote: post #148
petra wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about scaling a VC organization ? With hundreds of managers, A lot of institutional knowledge, helpful infrastructure for said company, and deep ties between companies ? Come to think of it, it has many similarities to Google X. But that's extremely hard to build.

There has been disappointingly little success from all of Google X's many investment dollars. I think with the hundreds of managers, institutional knowledge and helpful infrastructure comes a bureaucracy that kills a lot of what it creates.

you're right that Google X is a money sink - one of the first things Ruth Porat did when she came in is take an axe to it as it had been a sore point with instutitional investors for a while

"lets do Google X but with $100 billion" is a laughable business model

Re: Dog-walking startup Wag raised $300M, then things got messy

#172

Post by swatcoder »

sedachv wrote: post #164
fantasticFerret wrote: post #18

I applied to this company right at the beginning of there expansion. The person that interviewed me said he had been sleeping on couches for the last year or so, (around 2017) and working insane hours. They gave me a php coding test to implement some kind of pub/sub. I finished it. Had no real way of submitting it other than emailing it to the interviewer as a zip. The moment the interviewer told me they worked with…

> Had no real way of submitting it other than emailing it to the interviewer as a zip. Being good at email (ex: not relying on GMail, knowing basic things about line length, top-posting, signature, having your own domain(s), using an actual email client instead of webmail crap, Sieve filters and mailing list management, actually knowing how mailing-list based development works and being able to use (git) patch/diff,…

On the contrary, I wouldn’t _usually_ expect a lot of value from someone who did all that.

My first intuitions would be that they’re likely reluctant to make practical compromises, slow to accept norms, and that they’re prone to chasing rabbits. They might have a role on a large team or for a very specific project, but there’s be some wariness for sure.

Re: Dog-walking startup Wag raised $300M, then things got messy

#173

Post by wp381640 »

lawrenceyan wrote: post #7

You’ve got to applaud Masayoshi Son for his tenacity at the very least. Lived through the Dot Com Crash, caused the next one 20 years later. That’s a big achievement in my book. How many people can really say they’ve been able to do something like that? [Edit] I should probably add a caveat that Masayoshi Son isn’t the dumb one here. No, he’s actually quite the genius, managing to convince Saudia Arabia to basically…

Masayoshi Son took what Yuri Milner did but supercharged it - we all thought Milner and his investments and valuations were insane ($3.5 billion for Facebook - nuts!), but Softbank took it to a whole new level and ran out of growth to invest into

Re: Dog-walking startup Wag raised $300M, then things got messy

#174

Post by ajmurmann »

thecleaner wrote: post #81
loganfrederick wrote: post #16

What I don't get about the Vision Fund is how so many of its investments lack (pun intended) vision. Other than the ARM, Nvidia, and a few billion in biotech (about $3 billion[1]) investments, so much of the fund has gone into pretty "obvious" traditional startups. If I had a $100 billion fund, I wouldn't be swinging for these singles and doubles (which Uber and WeWork were by the time Softbank got involved, although…

A large part of this vision fund is basically Saudi oil money. These folks realize that oil doesn't have that much future if you think in terms of hundreds of years, so they are looking to diversify. Vision fund is not a tool to be on the cutting edge, its just a means to not be left behind. Hence they let VC market decide which horse is worth backing and then they swing their dollars around to see what happens.

That’s another thing I never got about Saudi’s investments. To me the obvious strategy with all the money would have been to not invest in empty skyscrapers or foreign investments, but pick two or three areas in which you massively bolster research and investment in an area like solar energy. Investment would be local and you try to attract all to talent in the field for both fundamental research as well as to fund companies. Investing in the Vision Fund might safe the cash, but does little for the economic future of UAE.

Re: Dog-walking startup Wag raised $300M, then things got messy

#175

Post by JMTQp8lwXL »

hogFeast wrote: post #39
jpollock wrote: post #19

If you're Saudi Arabia with a silly amount of money in cash, are you looking for 10-100x return out of this, or are you simply looking for a place to park liquid funds that won't lose as much as leaving it in German government bonds.

No. Without overcomplicating things, Saudi are the dumbest money out there. They have no idea at all. Even the ones that have worked at IBanks, have no real understanding of basic finance (and likely only got the job so the bank could try to bribe members of their family). To get an investment, you just need to bribe the right people...that is how they invest (I used to know two very junior royal family members, they…

Why not just put it index funds? If you already have far more money than you need, the average market rate of return should be acceptable. There's no need to try and 10x or 100x without, well, losing all of it, since the type of investments with that potential high of an upside are incredibly risky. Don't bet the farm.

Re: Dog-walking startup Wag raised $300M, then things got messy

#176

Post by seganddr »

wp381640 wrote: post #171
seem_2211 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There has been disappointingly little success from all of Google X's many investment dollars. I think with the hundreds of managers, institutional knowledge and helpful infrastructure comes a bureaucracy that kills a lot of what it creates.

you're right that Google X is a money sink - one of the first things Ruth Porat did when she came in is take an axe to it as it had been a sore point with instutitional investors for a while "lets do Google X but with $100 billion" is a laughable business model

Unless your goals are wealth redistribution and job creation and science...

Re: Dog-walking startup Wag raised $300M, then things got messy

#177

Post by streetcat1 »

threeseed wrote: post #45
loganfrederick wrote: post #16

What I don't get about the Vision Fund is how so many of its investments lack (pun intended) vision. Other than the ARM, Nvidia, and a few billion in biotech (about $3 billion[1]) investments, so much of the fund has gone into pretty "obvious" traditional startups. If I had a $100 billion fund, I wouldn't be swinging for these singles and doubles (which Uber and WeWork were by the time Softbank got involved, although…

Except that this isn't what Vision fund is about. What you are describing is more like a pre-seed/seed fund of which there are thousands around including YC. Sure they don't have the capital but that is often not the blocker for most of these companies. Vision fund is focused on taking successful companies global. And using their capital to knock out competitors and their experience in managing execution risk. And th…

The goal of the vision fund is to make companies a monopoly by selling below cost (using the vc money), and waiting for the rival companies to flee the market. It does not really care about the specific area.

This strategy will backfire in a fragmented market. I.e. if the competitor hold on.

Re: Dog-walking startup Wag raised $300M, then things got messy

#178

Post by lazyjones »

ajmurmann wrote: post #174
thecleaner wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A large part of this vision fund is basically Saudi oil money. These folks realize that oil doesn't have that much future if you think in terms of hundreds of years, so they are looking to diversify. Vision fund is not a tool to be on the cutting edge, its just a means to not be left behind. Hence they let VC market decide which horse is worth backing and then they swing their dollars around to see what happens.

That’s another thing I never got about Saudi’s investments. To me the obvious strategy with all the money would have been to not invest in empty skyscrapers or foreign investments, but pick two or three areas in which you massively bolster research and investment in an area like solar energy. Investment would be local and you try to attract all to talent in the field for both fundamental research as well as to fund c…

Norway did the same thing, it has worked very well for their economy so far.

Re: Dog-walking startup Wag raised $300M, then things got messy

#179

Post by CalChris »

petra wrote: post #166
CalChris wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$100B is not that much money. (Note to self: you just said $100B isn't that much money. Get head examined.) Bezos can aggressively handle it. Gates aggressively can handle it. Buffett can aggressively it. What is so special about the Vision Fund that it wants to put its money in the likes of Uber and WeWork? I would think knowledgable VCs would do their due diligence and avoid these companies. Investing into Uber at…

Buffet is sitting on $120B of cash: https://www.inc.com/jason-aten/warren-buffett-has-a-122-bill... Bezos isn't a VC, he owns the greatest demand engine the world has ever known, and that matters when spending money. And Gates ? he deals, smartly, with much lower sums. His energy VC is for example, has $1B. It's not so easy spending $40B-$50B in 3 years, like the vision fund did.

Bezos was a seed investor in Google in 1998. Bezos Expeditions is a massive family foundation fund.

Re: Dog-walking startup Wag raised $300M, then things got messy

#180

Post by lazyjones »

petra wrote: post #166
CalChris wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$100B is not that much money. (Note to self: you just said $100B isn't that much money. Get head examined.) Bezos can aggressively handle it. Gates aggressively can handle it. Buffett can aggressively it. What is so special about the Vision Fund that it wants to put its money in the likes of Uber and WeWork? I would think knowledgable VCs would do their due diligence and avoid these companies. Investing into Uber at…

Buffet is sitting on $120B of cash: https://www.inc.com/jason-aten/warren-buffett-has-a-122-bill... Bezos isn't a VC, he owns the greatest demand engine the world has ever known, and that matters when spending money. And Gates ? he deals, smartly, with much lower sums. His energy VC is for example, has $1B. It's not so easy spending $40B-$50B in 3 years, like the vision fund did.

> It's not so easy spending $40B-$50B in 3 years, like the vision fund did.

It is if you buy a few healthy companies instead of gambling in the early stage startup market.

Post reply on HN