Comment by CharlieDigital
1 year ago
> Unless, the investor is just trying to fund the most ruthless, least ethical, win-at-all-costs type of people
This is exactly what VCs are looking for. They are going to hand you a check worth several hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars. They are not doing this because it's a charity; they are doing this because they are making a bet that they'll get some return on that investment.
This is the purpose of a VC: to deploy capital in a way that is likely to yield the greatest returns for the investors.
Right, we get it. But you completely ignored the commenter's main point:
If you are so inept that copying someone else's codebase wholesale is what makes you a viable company, then perhaps you aren't worthy of investing in.
From a VC perspective, probably all the better: you've just shortcut a huge phase of R&D and can get right into marketing and sales. As long as there's some viable route to clean up any licensing issues (there almost always is).
You're thinking ethically; without the shrewdness and single-minded focus on profit that VC's have.
You're thinking ethically
No I'm not, and it's manifestly clear that I'm not.
Spoken as if there was only one single binary option for investment!
The strategy implies that the marginal value of the lack of ethics/the personality type to do that is the thing thats worth investment. If thats true, then venture capitalism and perhaps capitalism itself is super fucked: a machine for developing and rewarding the worst impulses of humanity.
Investors cheer when Uber, Lyft, and UPS drivers are treated as contractors.
They frown when they try to advocate for more rights, better employment conditions, and better pay.
Such is the nature of modern capitalism.
The Costco's and James Sinegal's of the world are few and rare; I wish we'd see more companies and leadership teams that valued labor and were more ethical. But a survey of the most successful CEO's (Ellison, Zuckerberg, Musk, et al) and companies leads us to believe that such principles are often opposed to the machinations of capitalism.
> capitalism
It's business under the laws, regulations, customs, and choices of American business in 2024.
I say that because, while 'capitalism' is a significant element, many people (not you) justify or rationalize their behavior or the current 'system' by asserting it's a law of human nature or economics, not their choices that yield their behavior and the system, and both can change. It's like criminals who say 'hate the game, not the player'.
Inevitability is a lazy argument for lazy thinkers and irresponsible people (again, to emphasize, the parent didn't make it). It's the corruption of power - they can do what they want, and therefore nobody can compel them to think harder and get better results.
So I think it's essential to draw the distinction.
> (Ellison, Zuckerberg, Musk, et al)
Other than Ellison, even the others didn't act this way a decade ago. Silicon Valley was built by a different ethos - 'don't be evil'. Power corrupts.
Yes. That's exactly what capitalism is.
Poe's Law: can't tell if serious or sarcastic.
At any rate, emergent behaviors can arise from complex systems, and thats exactly what I am alleging of (venture) capitalism at this stage of its evolution. If you have differences of opinion, by all means share them.
2 replies →
There’s also ego and fame at stake. VCs are hardly optimal.