61–70 of 147 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Considering so many public, profitable tech companies saw their valuations go down by 50-70% in that same period, that still seems too little of a cut.
This assumes Stripe is not outperforming expectations. .which seeing the Amazon deal....
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They've had several options for employees to liquidate some of their holdings before now. They've generally only been open to current employees, but one a few years ago was also open to past employees.
Those offerings are only for options holders. RSUs cannot be traded; otherwise, every RSU holder has to pay taxes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't need to. Transact with vendors you actually trust who have a track record you can verify (which necessitates people being trustworthy to earn business—unlike our current economic order).
And on the vendor side? Are you suggesting that either all sellers know a) the credit worthiness of their customers or b) don’t extend any credit? Either one seems like a major downside for the seller.
That's up to the business owner, but considering the utter destruction its done to the world I would say most businesses should not extend any credit.
The nice thing about Bitcoin is it's a transaction layer and people can build services on top of it. Someone could start a guarantor business that other businesses pay to verify creditworthiness. They do that already now, the difference being that it's a completely dark system controlled by people with no incentive to fairly or accurately represent your worthiness.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't need to. Transact with vendors you actually trust who have a track record you can verify (which necessitates people being trustworthy to earn business—unlike our current economic order).
How would that not lead to the inevitable concentration of economic activity in a few trusted platforms? Today, I can shop at pretty much any merchant on the web, under the reasonable expectation that my bank will file a dispute for me if the merchant makes a run for it and I never receive any goods or services. Even in case of merchant bankruptcy, I'm not exposed to any risk. In a world of non-reversible payments, I…
Because it would force people to be honest in order to eat. Economic activity as a whole would become a lot more transparent because people will avoid hiring you or buying from you if you have a bad reputation. The inverse is also true, rewarding the business owner who invests in quality and customer service.
> if the merchant makes a run for it
Again, this is a discernment issue not a systems issue. In that particular case, you can set up an escrow transaction that only releases funds if the transaction goes through. EBay has already proven, too, that most people are honest by default so this is a non-issue.
> In a world of non-reversible payments, I'd probably stick to Amazon exclusively. That seems pretty bad for small/new/independent merchants.
That's a personal choice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those offerings are only for options holders. RSUs cannot be traded; otherwise, every RSU holder has to pay taxes.
I assume Stripe is giving out "Double Trigger RSUs" then? https://blog.pragmaticengineer.com/equity-for-software-engin... Otherwise people are getting taxed now anyway if they are getting RSUs at a private Stripe, right?
Edit this is answered fairly well here: https://www.parkworth.com/blogs/pre-ipo-tech-giants-using-do.... The TLDR is SEC rules and limited perceived upside of options (although I imagine that could be solved via a lower strike price).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And on the vendor side? Are you suggesting that either all sellers know a) the credit worthiness of their customers or b) don’t extend any credit? Either one seems like a major downside for the seller.
> Are you suggesting that either all sellers know a) the credit worthiness of their customers or b) don’t extend any credit? That's up to the business owner, but considering the utter destruction its done to the world I would say most businesses should not extend any credit. The nice thing about Bitcoin is it's a transaction layer and people can build services on top of it. Someone could start a guarantor business th…
The transaction layer is arguably the least interesting service the credit card and other incumbent transaction/payment networks provide.
Deciding whether to move money, and possibly whether to move it back, is where the value is created.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would that not lead to the inevitable concentration of economic activity in a few trusted platforms? Today, I can shop at pretty much any merchant on the web, under the reasonable expectation that my bank will file a dispute for me if the merchant makes a run for it and I never receive any goods or services. Even in case of merchant bankruptcy, I'm not exposed to any risk. In a world of non-reversible payments, I…
> How would that not lead to the inevitable concentration of economic activity in a few trusted platforms? Because it would force people to be honest in order to eat. Economic activity as a whole would become a lot more transparent because people will avoid hiring you or buying from you if you have a bad reputation. The inverse is also true, rewarding the business owner who invests in quality and customer service. >…
But how do I detect honesty in first interaction with an unknown party?
> [...] people will avoid hiring you or buying from you if you have a bad reputation [...]
As a merchant, what if I have no reputation? How do I ever get my first customer?
> EBay has already proven, too, that most people are honest by default [...]
...on a centralized platform that can arbitrate trust!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Considering so many public, profitable tech companies saw their valuations go down by 50-70% in that same period, that still seems too little of a cut.
Public companies have more external influences on their valuation. It's not like they literally lost 50-70% of their intrinsic value, only what the market with the associated psychology says they are worth. Private companies can stick closer to that intrinsic value.
It's normally the opposite. Public markets are a lot better at judging intrinsic value than a handful of VCs. Every single private company out there is either wildly over or under-valued, more so at earlier stages.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They've had several options for employees to liquidate some of their holdings before now. They've generally only been open to current employees, but one a few years ago was also open to past employees.
Those offerings are only for options holders. RSUs cannot be traded; otherwise, every RSU holder has to pay taxes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Public companies have more external influences on their valuation. It's not like they literally lost 50-70% of their intrinsic value, only what the market with the associated psychology says they are worth. Private companies can stick closer to that intrinsic value.
> Private companies can stick closer to that intrinsic value It's normally the opposite. Public markets are a lot better at judging intrinsic value than a handful of VCs. Every single private company out there is either wildly over or under-valued, more so at earlier stages.