Hacker News Reader

> It was VC money, that's money intentionally being gambled in high risk endeavors.

The high risk endeavor does not have anything to do with the bank where you deposit the money raised. Here, it does not matter if the source of money is a VC or another.

It does. SVB is preferred by startups because they do things that other banks won't, riskier things. It's not the same as any old bank.

This is a foolish take, because it ignores the thousands of workers who distinctly aren't high rollers. It's hard for me to see the moral difference between 'public workers pension fund' and 'workers trying to feed their families, who happen to work at a startup'

I also work at a startup. I have for much of my career.

I said in my OP that my view is that the startups themselves should be bailed out, saving jobs like yours and mine. The VCs should then forfeit their shares to the US govt, to be sold later, to offset the costs of the bailout.

They could have deposited the funds at a bank that charged a fee to hold it instead of FTXing it.

You cannot compare the regulation aspects of a bank to FTX, and the crime behind it.

That's just spiteful. I would rather keep the startups in business than punish the VCs by making them lose money on their current investments.

The VCs caused the run on the bank is what I'm reading.

A run on the bank is a social phenomenon, and "VCs" aren't a singular monolith that acts in concert. The "VCs" didn't want this to happen any more than others.

But they benefit from the upside. It's their gamble, not ours.

Regular depositors under $250k also benefit from the upside of their "gamble". Yet we protect their deposits regardless because we want to reduce the systemic risk of bank runs.

How do they benefit from their gamble? Regular depositors in a bank get stocks from VCs? I don't follow

Right so when you say "But they benefit from the upside. It's their gamble, not ours." ... Your first sentence is talking about the deposit, then you switch the subject matter and start talking about a VC's equity in their investment? Everything you've written in this thread sounds like morality-laden, anger-laden, fist in the air kind of stuff, where you're criticising your own confusion and using loaded terms in order to push a point. Nothing well reasoned. I'm done here.

> The issue is it wasn't pension money. It was VC money, that's money intentionally being gambled in high risk endeavors. It's not right for thr tax payers to bail out rich VCs who gambles their money.

Putting your startup's funds in a FDIC insured bank isn't exactly "gambling".

It is if you have funds over the FDIC limit. There are services that take care of that for you, there are many standard practices that exist to protect against this, all were ignored.

I dislike these populist, low resolution takes that use rhetorical devices ("gambled" instead of "invested") to try to persuade but are otherwise void of well-reasoned analysis and are more about criticising one's own confusion.

If you want something to be justifiably upset about, it's the carried interest loophole.

A VC investment is more like a gamble and less like an investment. I'm not the only one that sees it that way.

After 15 years of working in startups in the Bay Area, I've learned they are gambles, not investments.

You've learned wrong, VC is by definition a category of investments and you attempting to relabel it as gambling is an attempt to persuade via rhetorical device rather than via sound argument.

> The issue is it wasn't pension money. It was VC money...

You're going to shit yourself when you learn who some of the LPs are.

What is an LP?

"Limited partner", someone who invests in a partnership without having day-to-day management control (IIRC). In the case of VCs, many of the limited partners are pension funds or other giant players who want to invest a small fraction of their assets in higher-risk, higher return securities. (The LPs probably have other assets invested in lower-risk, lower-return assets.)