Strongly disagree.
(1) The actual reform would be to make IPOs easier, by essentially eliminating Sarbox. And we'll actually get that reform... but only via crypto, because all companies will become cryptoequities. However, that means they'll list on Internet capital markets and crypto exchanges, rather than NYSE/NASDAQ.
(2) See how the number of US public companies has crashed since the early 2000s? Then, ten years later, the number of Internet coins started soaring. The big picture is that we're just sunsetting US capital markets in favor of Internet capital markets.
(3) Now, let's talk about why random government interference with voluntary capitalist transactions is so bad.
(a) First, bigcos (invisibly) reduce already rare M&A activity, because they need to budget for a global fight with regulators just to get a deal done.
(b) Next, bigcos are forced into baroque deal structures, like the recent Character, Scale, Inflection, Adept, Covariant, and Windsurf deals, which can cause drama for everyone.
(c) And, bigcos are forced to fight to the death with startups rather than surrender to them by acquiring them. In practice this often means political skullduggery.
(d) Finally, bigcos put far less of their profits into exits, which in turns results in less money for tech startups. After all, a big M&A is a big surrender for a bigco, as they'd prefer not to capitulate to a startup by buying them.
So: that means less M&A, more complexity, more politics, and less money. That's like every dysfunctional socialist country, where businesses need to use political connections simply to get a deal done.
To be clear: of course I understand the hostility towards Big Tech, which did after all censor millions. But regulations in general strengthen bigcos by making it so complex and expensive to do things that startups can't compete (or, in this case, get acquired).
Finally: the Elizabeth Warren/Lina Khan faction of statists generally haven't founded businesses and certainly don't want to advance technology. Their actual policy goal was to kill tech and stop us from getting to Mars.
Sometimes they're explicit about it; see poster below. The only edit you'd make is that they were building an anti-tech army, and that army was (for now) defeated on the battlefield of ideas.
(1) The actual reform would be to make IPOs easier, by essentially eliminating Sarbox. And we'll actually get that reform... but only via crypto, because all companies will become cryptoequities. However, that means they'll list on Internet capital markets and crypto exchanges, rather than NYSE/NASDAQ.
(2) See how the number of US public companies has crashed since the early 2000s? Then, ten years later, the number of Internet coins started soaring. The big picture is that we're just sunsetting US capital markets in favor of Internet capital markets.
(3) Now, let's talk about why random government interference with voluntary capitalist transactions is so bad.
(a) First, bigcos (invisibly) reduce already rare M&A activity, because they need to budget for a global fight with regulators just to get a deal done.
(b) Next, bigcos are forced into baroque deal structures, like the recent Character, Scale, Inflection, Adept, Covariant, and Windsurf deals, which can cause drama for everyone.
(c) And, bigcos are forced to fight to the death with startups rather than surrender to them by acquiring them. In practice this often means political skullduggery.
(d) Finally, bigcos put far less of their profits into exits, which in turns results in less money for tech startups. After all, a big M&A is a big surrender for a bigco, as they'd prefer not to capitulate to a startup by buying them.
So: that means less M&A, more complexity, more politics, and less money. That's like every dysfunctional socialist country, where businesses need to use political connections simply to get a deal done.
To be clear: of course I understand the hostility towards Big Tech, which did after all censor millions. But regulations in general strengthen bigcos by making it so complex and expensive to do things that startups can't compete (or, in this case, get acquired).
Finally: the Elizabeth Warren/Lina Khan faction of statists generally haven't founded businesses and certainly don't want to advance technology. Their actual policy goal was to kill tech and stop us from getting to Mars.
Sometimes they're explicit about it; see poster below. The only edit you'd make is that they were building an anti-tech army, and that army was (for now) defeated on the battlefield of ideas.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
