> Second, investing, typically in shares of a company, is very different from giving a loan to the same company.
No shit. This is essentially my point.
I don't care what companies will or will not exist on each model; What I care about is the sort of incentive each model creates.
In a model where investors give loans to nascent companies as a mean for those to have needed capital, the incentives are there for a company to make sense, grow organically, and chase profitability. In other words, the incentive is there for companies to be economically viable.
The model you defend creates an incentive for destructive growth. Investing in exchange of equity only makes sense to reach the exit event, no matter how ruinous things are as a result. It's a model that creates this shitty hustle-culture grift-economic. I will have trouble to express politely how much I think it makes the world a shittier place.
As I said, I indirectly benefitted from it, but I recognize that this model sort of sucks.
So, it doesn't really matter if I would have loaned money to those ventures (in a scenario where I am someone in the position of loaning money). But for the sake of entertaining you, I'll reply:
- NVidia: Maybe. The hardware business is cutthroat, but I think a company can be sustainable producing computer hardware.
- Dropbox: Probably not. Neat idea, but easy to copy by larger players or other upstarts.
- Diffusion LLMs: No. Too experimental, and I likely would not have seen potential for it early on.
No shit. This is essentially my point.
I don't care what companies will or will not exist on each model; What I care about is the sort of incentive each model creates.
In a model where investors give loans to nascent companies as a mean for those to have needed capital, the incentives are there for a company to make sense, grow organically, and chase profitability. In other words, the incentive is there for companies to be economically viable.
The model you defend creates an incentive for destructive growth. Investing in exchange of equity only makes sense to reach the exit event, no matter how ruinous things are as a result. It's a model that creates this shitty hustle-culture grift-economic. I will have trouble to express politely how much I think it makes the world a shittier place.
As I said, I indirectly benefitted from it, but I recognize that this model sort of sucks.
So, it doesn't really matter if I would have loaned money to those ventures (in a scenario where I am someone in the position of loaning money). But for the sake of entertaining you, I'll reply:
- NVidia: Maybe. The hardware business is cutthroat, but I think a company can be sustainable producing computer hardware.
- Dropbox: Probably not. Neat idea, but easy to copy by larger players or other upstarts.
- Diffusion LLMs: No. Too experimental, and I likely would not have seen potential for it early on.