A16Z has a portfolio size of $35 billion and invested nearly $8 billion in pure cryptocurrency schemes (probably quite a bit more additional investment through some of their funds which aren't exclusively crypto plays). We're not talking "99.9% avoidance of obvious scams" or any other tiny fraction.
Their flagship crypto fund was down 40% in 2022. Even if it returned profits to shareholders since its seed investments in 2009, it did so at the expense of people who bought in later, like all crypto wins. They didn't "create value" they, at best, extracted value from crypto scams. And at this point it's not even clear to me how the fund is performing overall.
Yes but we're talking about SV as a whole, not a specific firm? If we assume a quarter of a16z's crypto investments will turn out to be actual frauds, which is a big assumption, that's only a small bit of all the money flowing through SV.
And plus I think even a 98% success rate of avoiding scams is already pretty noteworthy, like I said 99.9% is a very high bar.
It's my personal bar for someone/some group to be considered honest. I'm not sure what 'reaperman's threshold is but I doubt it's literally 100% or even 99.9%.
The “major players” post the vast majority of their investments because they’re advertising their funds to potential limited partners. It also publicly signaling the strength of the companies they invest in which improves their outcomes through ease of negotiating future business agreements with potential customers and partners.
So it’s definitely possible to establish an approximate upper and lower bound, and it’s way above your 2% limit.
You’d either have to accept that SV does, in fact, deal heavily in scams, or post-facto adjust your tolerance limit to set the bar lower.
Again: which VC’s do you consider the core of Silicon Valley business culture?
I did A16Z already. This only involves a very easy google search, and maybe throw in some crunchbase searches. It’s an absolutely trivial task and I’d expect you to try doing this exercise on at least one other VC that you’re interested in.
I could do an exhaustive analysis of public data, but that would be more of a blog post than a discussion comment. I expect you to put in a minimum amount of effort towards fact-checking if you want people to take your strong opinions seriously.
For the third time: which VC’s do you consider the core of Silicon Valley business culture?
I need you to answer this question so that when I do the analysis I’m not wasting time analyzing investment firms that you don’t think represent Silicon Valley.
I’ll write the blog post for you. But not if you won’t participate in this discussion with a bare minimum of contributing effort. Otherwise it’s purely a one-way discussion, where I do all the work and you just say “no no no”.
But I haven’t gotten a single constructive iota from you in this entire discussion. You’ve put in zero effort at all.
It seems your confused 'runnerup', your behaving as if I had initially responded to your comment, when in fact it's the opposite, even more so as you started asking strangely combative questions under a response I made for 'reaperman'.
Usual HN custom is to answer one question after the other user answers one, or two for two, etc., not to ignore them and immediately demand answers to subsequent questions. And I had already answered two without even getting an answer to:
>Why would I be asserting that to you or anyone else?
No real system can accomplish that, even 99.9% is already a very high bar.