> To that end I hope Opendoor succeeds simply so it can be a role model for tech: taking on big risks for big rewards that create real value by solving real problems is the best possible way our industry can create benefits that extend beyond investors and shareholders;
The only reason (ok one of the big reasons, not the only) Opendoor exists is that the massive amount of capital deployed has the potential to make investors and shareholders a ton of money. It's an all or nothing proposition. Furthermore, I don't think the author has rightly assessed (or assessed at all) the negative externalities associated with Opendoor's model to the economy. Part of the whole reason the housing market revelation of "too big to fail" of banks was exposed was because too much of the real estate market was tied up in too few organizations (Fannie/Freddie, Wells, etc), which means when it crumbles down, our economy cannot sustain the burden. If OpenDoor's risk mitigation model is to basically "own more of the market" it means that if/when the market does go for a downturn and OpenDoor goes bust, then it's not just VC's who lose, but a whole lot of homeowners, or even worse, homeowners and taxpayers.
That's hardly a model I'd admire or try emulate, unless of course, I want to make a buttload of cash (or fail very hard trying).
> Opendoor is creating value as opposed to taxing a few bucks off the top of an existing market or simply trying to be cheap.
Opendoor's arbitrage is no different then an ad network, they're both exploiting inefficiencies. I'm really having a hard time understand why it's so much more "benevolent" as it's suggested here.