I was skeptical on signal risk being big issue. Its impact on potential new vcs is still overweighted imo
But recent convos with founder friends has flipped my view
The real issue is how it changes openness on fundraising strategy between founders & *current* investor
Because now they are player in the next round too. So founders become a lot more sensitive about what to share and being able to talk it through with them
Not only bc have to still be marketing to them (which I personally think people underweight degree you always must do that)
but also because now conversations with them affect the dynamics of upcoming round, like double slit experiment
I don't view that as insurmountable. And all of private markets is the essence of conflict of interest (which has huge positives too)
but I think we focus on wrong side when we worry about new investors perception of company--instead of what it's doing to founder-board member dynamics
of course, many founders already don't use board in that advisory way (which is whole different conversation) but this side
does feel like issue to be addressed
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
My conspiracy theory is that oil isn’t dinosaurs. It’s the carbon capture technology of the dinosaurs
This is the only thing I want to believe. And makes all carbon capture tech innovation infinitely more funny to me.
Dinosaur time traveler: how do you like our gift to your generatio…sorry you thought that was *made* from my dead body. And you shoved it into your car?!?!
Lowercarbon LP letter: every day we strive to walk a little closer to the glory of the Mesozoic era
Here's chart I made for myself that I think about. Basically the only time period of US history where we've gone this long without a president winning with 75%+ of electoral college was post-civil war period
Lots of ways to interpret this.
One would be to think about what are plausible paths of someone getting those numbers in today's age. If we expect reversion to mean, than it's very interesting to understand what paths someone will cut through it.
Another interpretation of course would be to be bearish. A third
is to think party system has gotten more "efficient" at being roughly evenly split.
You might be wondering what is that datapoint of someone winning with less than 50%. Is that even possible?!?!
We're at odd ground right now where there's not really any medium for mid/long form discussion on blog posts anymore
Blog post replies not really a thing. Twitter used to be but less a place for discussion. Private email and group chat sort of the place, but issues with both
Email or spinning up something like a discourse seems like the temporary solution I'm increasingly tempted by
Latter is tempting after seeing some successes in it on protocol forums for long form. But has whole list of other reasons high activation energy
but it is very odd that there are essays I read where literally do not know where one discusses them
Most I read wouldn't be hacker news fodder anyways. But fwiw I think hacker news is not this either.
2. is the reliance on exit as the safeguard a temporary or long term solution. Which implies views on the long term stability of individual crypto projects vs constant churn due to the incentives towards defection we've seen market give today
subpoint buried within the 2nd point is that I think there's probably a better understanding of some kind of meta-project players where you should see exit into new tokens not as churn but as capture of a more informed / capitalized elite in crypto. And I suspect the data would