Did you really expect a 100% perfect rate? i.e. infallibility?
No real system can accomplish that, even 99.9% is already a very high bar.
No real system can accomplish that, even 99.9% is already a very high bar.
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.
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.
Besides A16Z, what are the other investment firms that you feel comprises the core of Silicon Valley VC culture?
Obviously I don't have access to the detailed financial records of every major player in SV, nor likely does anyone else on HN.
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.
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.
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.
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?