Looking at these comments, I can't think of another VC that has burned as much goodwill among technical people as a16z has. Don't get me wrong, it's well deserved, but it's just surprising how universal it seems to be (at least in this thread).
Yet nearly every public statement he's made since becoming a full-time VC has been about pumping the worst companies and claiming they're the future. Airbnb, WeWork, a metric f'ton of crypto startups.
It's almost painful watching the inventor of Netscape trying to postulate to Tyler Cowen how Web3 is the new internet:
I would go as far as to say their 'real' product was an avenue to attack Microsoft - not the browser they made.
They got a lot of money by positioning themselves as an anti-Microsoft vector, had a huge IPO as an unprofitable company during the dot com boom, successfully entrapped Microsoft in an anti-trust case, then got acquired by AOL.
Of course I'm not a billionaire and I don't doubt it took a lot of skill to earn that money. I'm just not sure those are the same skills you need to build a profitable business or useful product.
The "crypto true believers" are pissed off because they got extracted like the pyramid scheme players they were. The "crypto is a scam" people are pissed off because it was bloody obvious that it was a pyramid scheme and these people are getting off scot free while the plebians take it in the shorts. And the crypto pyramid players got pissed because the big boys have the money to extract the payout better than they do.
Have seen it directly. Not automatic dismissal. But dismissing the valuation, which puts a founder in down-round territory out of the gate. (Also, questions about naïveté.) We saw similar issues with SoftBank when they were in the late stages of their reputational shredder.
It’s similar to the crowdfunding penalty. Is it money? Sure. Does it impact going-forward fundraising prospects? Of course.
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20221109050305/https://www.sequo...
Martins beach
Single fiascos rarely tank brands.
Sequoia still has a braintrust that makes it profitable to associate with. Andreessen is increasingly a refuge for those who have no other choice, are in on the grift or are being grifted.
That's why this single fiasco is so damaging: the braintrust has proven to be a farcical joke. The guy was playing video games while on their funding calls and they called it "genius." Zero due diligence, just brown nosing.
Sequoia balance their SBFs with solid, profitable bets. That means they can keep raising funds, keep paying out carry, and through both of those maintain staying power. I don't love reducing this to economics, but at the end of the day if you can't pay your LPs, you can't pay your GPs, and when you have second-rate GPs you're going to wind up with second-rate founders. Sequoia brings home the bacon. Andreessen lives on management fees.
SBF was such a bad bet with so little due diligence that I don't think this is going to be true going forward and probably hasn't been for a while. They were running on zero interest rates and brand momentum so let's see how much money their next fund returns.
"Let's see" means they're still in the game. Anyone might stumble in the future. The difference between Sequoia and a16z is Sequoia might stumble, a16z already has.
The goal post is and always has been returns. I’ve been consistent on that [1].
You're saying "No, they just really hate a16z" and I'm saying huh, it is interesting that all of the threads on new technology, whether it is LLMs or crypto or whatever, tend to have people who "really hate [xyz]".
Honestly, it speaks to the magnitude of the LLM breakthrough that HN is at least mixed on that topic.
This site would be better if users like you read and followed their own advice.
There's no higher "status" or anything to be gained on how long you spend on this silly site, I just think it is relevant to the specific conversation.
Why is account age relevant to the conversation when you have already demonstrated it's not accurate?
Now they're trying to to do it again. AI is important, but it's simply not the "all things will be different in six week, so invest now or get left behind!" that they're doing.
One man's 'objective critique' is going to be another man's 'grievance culture'.
In any case, A16z attracts more dislike because their image is that of influencers and hype men. You won't see the same dislike of Kleiner Perkins or others because they keep a low public profile.
What is large or successful about their crypto currency, web3 or nft endeavors?
Seems to me like it goes all the way back to that Dropbox comment.
It might be bias on my part - I work in deep NLP and maybe I'm just feeling the heat there for the first time.
Look at all the negative posts about Google, Youtube and ads. Do you think the adtech engineer visitng HN cares one iota?
[1] Using “ressentiment” is on the level of accusing someone of having father/mother issues (the Freud variant).