Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Cameron Armstrong
@cameron
We glorify life's work outcomes over fund cycle timelines. How do we square this anomaly with the stable happiness for the creators of knowledge capital?
3 replies
0 recast
3 reactions
Ben
@benersing
It's a byproduct of the current nature of risk-on capital markets, plus capitalism wasn't intended to optimize for individual happiness. If anything that's an anomaly.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Cameron Armstrong
@cameron
So by happiness i mean less in a fluffy sense and more in a "how do we keep competent people going longer because that ultimately increases GDP" <- plenty to debate in that but its a close representation of my first principles Can you flesh out why risk on = shorter timeline celebration?
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
Ben
@benersing
Can you expand on 'going longer'? Are you referring to doing so as independent freelancers / creators? General career longevity? Other? It's not a celebration as much as a present reality: LPs invest into GPs with a 10-year fund lifecycle expectation, therefore GPs invest in founders with a similar expectation.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Cameron Armstrong
@cameron
Going longer in this case means choosing a Spacex problem over a 18 month AI wrapper sprint - i guess it's the entrepreneurs version of the "boo hoo public markets are too short term focused" problem I think the mechanics of fund cycles are definitely part of it, but basically all startup lore is focused on speed
3 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
Drew Volpe
@drew
The “18 month markup” push is driven not by fund lengths but by VCs wanting markups they can use to raise their next fund (and their LPs wanting their bonuses).
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Drew Volpe
@drew
VC funds are designed to be 10+ years and even at the end, you don’t need an exit: funds can do a secondary sale or just transfer the shares to LPs. The pressure for exits really comes down to the time horizon of the VCs and LPs running that fund.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
