Hacker News Reader

Comment by huijzer | Hacker News Reader

> You don't raise this much money this fast without having some success to show the investors.

I’m pretty sure the dotcom bubble had many counterexamples

If you follow Oxide (perhaps just by reading their Blog[1] and RFDs[2]), I think you'd find a more rigorous engineering and business culture than most case studies you're referring to from the 90s/00s. Of course it's not impossible that Oxide is getting themselves in trouble, but there is more evidence supporting a successful case, in my opinion.

[1]: https://oxide.computer/blog

[2]: https://rfd.shared.oxide.computer/

The problems are 1) money is flowing so freely that you can't use the raise here as a signal of anything meaningful and 2) the industry (especially hardware) is in massive flux right now.

So what might look like success in this environment might look very different if the bubble pops.

Obviously Oxide has a ton of experience on its side but it's so opaque where any of this goes that even they can't read the tea leaves.

oxide is a hardware company, not a Dotcom

I have a physical tulip to sell you

same as Cisco

pets.com has entered the chat.

Webvan has left the chat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webvan

>Bankruptcy

>The company lost over $800 million and shut down in June 2001, filing for bankruptcy and laying off 2,000 employees.

>Reasons for failure

>CNET named Webvan one of the largest dot-com flops in history.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com