Content History
love this project by @every on predicting what the future of human work looks like after automation here's my contribution:
BREAKING: When today’s jobs are automated by AI, what will great human work look like? This is the most important question of our time. Introducing Thesis Statements, a new project from @every bringing together 100 builders and thinkers to call their shot: We asked them to
View quoted postgive em some love!
https://akta.pro is live on Product Hunt today. Pitchbook-quality data on private companies, pay-as-you-go. Depth like this is hard to build and almost nobody pairs it with pricing you can start on today. akta goes beyond firmographics, revenue, and valuation estimates.
RT Dan Gray Venture capital exists to get companies to the point of having stable, scalable businesses — then sending them to public markets (or acquirers). In recent years, as private markets inflated, the default behavior switched to remaining private and absorbing more capital (to justify more VC fee income). This has resulted in fewer IPOs, and worsening prospects post-IPO for venture-backed companies. VCs continually misrepresent this as the public markets being hostile to innovative companies (further deterring IPOs, maximising fees), when in fact it is the result of too much venture capital. The theory is simple: Private and public markets have fundamentally different priorities, reflected in how they value companies. Private companies are primarily valued on their fundraising momentum, which is a result of ARR and hot market narratives. The resulting companies are fragile rocket ships with weak economics. Public companies are valued on a range of metrics, including a relatively thorough examination of their financial health. Hype also competes directly with pressure from short sellers. As a result, the longer a company stays private, the more it will struggle in public markets. It's possible to test this theory by examining recent IPOs, controlling for market conditions and sector relevance (e.g. excluding biotech). It turns out, the logic holds. See the bottom of this post for the full report. The following factors are all directional indicators of WORSE performance (vs Nasdaq-100), post-IPO: - More revenue - More capital raised - Higher valuations Holding companies private to use them as vessels for increased allocation (more fees) is toxic. It has produced a frail generation of startups which lack staying power or meaningful innovation. Instead, VCs should be looking to send companies public much earlier if they are optimising for the future success of their portfolio companies. The correct moment for an IPO will vary significa...
If revenue, valuation and funding of VC-backed companies all appear negatively correlated with IPO success, beyond a point, is profit a better indicator? Looking at raw profit/loss, it seems so. There's the same pattern of somewhat right-skewed convexity, with a steady fall-off
cool research
New work I'm very excited about: Physics of Agents!🤖 As AI agents become more prevalent, they'll interact and influence one another. Can we predict the collective behavior that emerges? Surprisingly, their dynamics follow compact, predictive laws of statistical physics🧵
