81–90 of 134 posts
I've seen enough scammy crap in my life, and unfortunately was part of briefly earlier in life, that when things like SPACs pop up the scams are fairly obvious.
If anyone tries to sell you on something that doesn't make sense even after you spend some time researching it, it's probably in the scam bucket.
Wall Street banks made a lot of money off of that craze and that’s really the reason number one the Fed didn’t tighten its policy when inflation was flashing red. Never trust the Fed. They merely exist to facilitate monetary policies for Wall Street banks.
Too much of it felt like hot air and I went elsewhere. This was two years ago, and indeed some BS press release from a year ago says their “deal” fell apart. Seemingly reputable investors too, wtf.
Keep your BS detectors on at all times.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not everything that is a bad investment is a Ponzi scheme.
For some reason calling out "it's not achshually a Ponzi scheme!" is the new "correlation is not causation!!" Yes, I agree with you, it doesn't have the features of the Wikipedia definition of a Ponzi scheme. But language changes over time. I think the salient point that people now think about when calling things a Ponzi scheme is "Early investors are aware that, at its root, the investment sucks. So their goal is to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not hair-splitting, a SPAC is simply not a Ponzi scheme. That doesn't mean it's a good investment.
SPACs may not always be ponzi schemes, but plenty are of dubious, unvetted businesses and for the principle purpose of paying returns to prior investors.
Also illegitimate businesss. Theranos was definitely illegitimate (and had the characteristic of little fish investors trying to sell to bigger fish), but it would be a pretty severe category error to call it a ponzi scheme.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not everything that is a bad investment is a Ponzi scheme.
For some reason calling out "it's not achshually a Ponzi scheme!" is the new "correlation is not causation!!" Yes, I agree with you, it doesn't have the features of the Wikipedia definition of a Ponzi scheme. But language changes over time. I think the salient point that people now think about when calling things a Ponzi scheme is "Early investors are aware that, at its root, the investment sucks. So their goal is to…
I'm always somewhat amazed that Chamath Palihapitiya doesn't have a much worse reputation: 1. My understanding is that he was the primary initial architect of "A/B testing for engagement" at Facebook that turned social media into a tribalistic, outrage generating machine (nothing engages like hate), and that the rest of SV essentially copied. I think this trajectory would have happened regardless, but he was first, s…
All the All In pod guys are awful people, with the possible exception of Friedberg.
SPACs, in theory, democratized access to late-stage private markets, aiming to give retail investors an early seat at the table. but like many financial innovations, they're tools that can be wielded wisely or poorly. the high failure rate suggests a misalignment of incentives: founders and sponsors capture immediate liquidity, while long-term outcomes get obfuscated by the structure. I once had a chat with a founder…
I'm always somewhat amazed that Chamath Palihapitiya doesn't have a much worse reputation: 1. My understanding is that he was the primary initial architect of "A/B testing for engagement" at Facebook that turned social media into a tribalistic, outrage generating machine (nothing engages like hate), and that the rest of SV essentially copied. I think this trajectory would have happened regardless, but he was first, s…
Does he? I thought he was clearly Jim Cramer for VC watchers. The brightest light in the All In listener dorm room. His niche is lucrative. But he isn’t taken seriously, particularly given recent questions around his personal and firm’s solvency.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
SPACs may not always be ponzi schemes, but plenty are of dubious, unvetted businesses and for the principle purpose of paying returns to prior investors.
I lot of legitimate businesses fall into that category. Also illegitimate businesss. Theranos was definitely illegitimate (and had the characteristic of little fish investors trying to sell to bigger fish), but it would be a pretty severe category error to call it a ponzi scheme.
"Holmes duped just about everyone about the efficacy of Edison. For 12 years, she essentially ran a Ponzi scheme by attracting millions of dollars from primarily venture capitalists that saw it as a unique opportunity to cash in on the boom in Silicon Valley."
https://www.ethicssage.com/2022/01/fake-it-until-you-make-it...
I would appreciate, for my own edification, what specific things you believe are different between what Ms Holmes did and what Maydoff or Ponzi did. I'm genuinely curious.