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

Unicorns are setting up their own venture capital funds

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–86 of 86 posts

Re: Unicorns are setting up their own venture capital funds

#81

Post by wpietri »

reidjs wrote: post #71
wpietri wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like perpetual motion machines, some are scams and some are just run by sincere fools. And it's entirely possible that there are some real businesses run by smart people who needed funding and the blockchain bits are just window dressing. So not scams, exactly, but more the kind of marketing fraud that, in the marketing world, barely counts as fraud at all. If you have proof that one of them is a) a real business, b)…

The only proven use of blockchain is to transfer value from one person to another over the internet without relying on a central bank account. Doesn’t that validate the tech to some degree?

Not to me, as that's not an actual user need. Legitimate money transfer needs are things like, "send money to my cousin back home" or "buy a thing". Despite Bitcoin being around for a decade, it has made approximately zero inroads into those markets.

I'll grant Bitcoin has some utility for light crime, like buying drugs or evading capital controls. And it's the technology of choice for ransomware and some kinds of electronic fraud. (It's bad for serious crime as it leaves too much of an audit trail.) But I don't think crime is a very good domain for running real businesses, so that doesn't count for me either.

Re: Unicorns are setting up their own venture capital funds

#82

Post by wpietri »

golergka wrote: post #22
wpietri wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly my question. I have yet to see real use cases for blockchains beyond speculation and some light crime. And I think true self-driving cars (SAE Level 5 in specific) are 10-30 years out. But I think there's enough value to be had in lower, more achieveable levels that I expect some of the companies investing in those technologies now will be long-term financial winners.

Light crime, as in buying drugs, is one hell of a market. I don't have solid data, but it seems that 90-95% of all drug-related transactions go through bitcoin nowdays, at least on the consumer level.

It's a good market in some sense, but it's a bad market for businesses that want to do things like IPO. It's also not a great market for people who want to stay alive in that many existing competitors are known for their violence, and if they come after you calling the police is not a great idea.

Re: Unicorns are setting up their own venture capital funds

#83

Post by wpietri »

atomical wrote: post #70
wpietri wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like perpetual motion machines, some are scams and some are just run by sincere fools. And it's entirely possible that there are some real businesses run by smart people who needed funding and the blockchain bits are just window dressing. So not scams, exactly, but more the kind of marketing fraud that, in the marketing world, barely counts as fraud at all. If you have proof that one of them is a) a real business, b)…

I'm attacking the part of your argument that it's a scam based on your own limited knowledge. You then respond by asking me to present proof to you as if your own ignorance is somehow compelling.

Sorry, perhaps I didn't understand. Are you saying Eich's startup meets all three of those criteria?

As I said, I'm not saying all of them are scams. Indeed, I specifically mentioned two other possible classes they could fall into. And as I think is clear from my initial comment, I'm open to the possibility that someone will find a use for blockchain that enables some sort of viable business that couldn't be done with other tech.

You of course don't owe me any explanations. But you're the one who jumped in with a variety of handwaving contradictions to my comments. So if you want to to be taken seriously, backing you agitation with evidence would be a good step.

Re: Unicorns are setting up their own venture capital funds

#84

Post by wpietri »

dclusin wrote: post #24
wpietri wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly my question. I have yet to see real use cases for blockchains beyond speculation and some light crime. And I think true self-driving cars (SAE Level 5 in specific) are 10-30 years out. But I think there's enough value to be had in lower, more achieveable levels that I expect some of the companies investing in those technologies now will be long-term financial winners.

There's probably a profitable use case in there somewhere for level 4 cars. I'm thinking office parks and corporate campuses. But I share this belief that self driving cars are way over-hyped and aren't going to be here any time soon.

As best I can tell, Waymo's upcoming service is Level 4 with a remote backup driver for times when the software can't cope.

Re: Unicorns are setting up their own venture capital funds

#85

Post by wpietri »

IshKebab wrote: post #48
dclusin wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's probably a profitable use case in there somewhere for level 4 cars. I'm thinking office parks and corporate campuses. But I share this belief that self driving cars are way over-hyped and aren't going to be here any time soon.

That's what university research and small self driving cars people always say - "it'll be used at airports and campuses" - but in reality there are very few campuses that would benefit, and airports mostly already have internal transit solutions.

Why do you say that few campuses would benefit? In San Francisco alone, USF, UCSF, SFSU, AAU, and CCA all have shuttles. And that's in a city with good public transit.

Re: Unicorns are setting up their own venture capital funds

#86

Post by beagle3 »

Aloha wrote: post #75
beagle3 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft knew all about Google Yahoo knew everything about Google Google knew everything about Facebook Intel knew everything about ARM Yet disruption ensued. “Can’t be disrupted” is foolish.

Google (still) doesn't really compete with Microsoft - they're in related but different verticals, Google and Microsoft have different core businesses - while yes, they compete on the periphery, they're not in head to head competition, Microsofts successful business model soldiers on - no disruption really seen. Facebook and Google don't really compete either - again, related, but different verticals, Googles existin…

g-suite ate a huge chunk of Exchange's lunch, and a non-trivial part of the office lunch.

ChromeOS ate a nontrivial part of Microsoft's OS business.

Android completely obliterated any chance of a market MS had for phones.

Chrome (and Firefox, which was effectively funded by Google for a long time) dethroned IE(and edge), almost to the point of irrelevance.

It did not disrupt Microsoft's business model - but it ate huge chunks of it. Where Google didn't venture (e.g. database & server software), Microsoft is still extracting monopoly rent. Where it did (mobile OS), no one wanted Microsoft's offering, regardless of getting free money with it.

Facebook and Google totally, completely, compete with each other. If you have on-line advertising spend, you decice on the facebook/google split. They are in exactly the same vertical - extremely directed and trackable on line advertising. Don't confuse "users" with "customers".

Intel's business model was expensive high margin CPUs to all. They still do for servers. It was most definitely disrupted in the consumer space because phones exist - many people for which it would have been unthinkable a few years ago to have no PC/Laptop today, only have a phone, or have a very loe end laptop (which Intel makes very little on).

> it was a new line of business opening up, due to changes in the market place - where a major player in a related marketplace failed to achieve dominance

You have just given the usual definition of disruption. I agree existing markets were not overtaken. Mobile phones disrupted the land line business, even though that one is still alive. Linux disrupted the proprietary OS bbusines, even though that one is still alive. Amazon disrupted commerce.

Facebook killed myspace, and yahoo participated in its own killing. And there's definitely disruption all over.

Post reply on HN