Some thoughts on why there is not git repo equivalent for #productmanagement

[or maybe I just thrive in a huge mess 😬​]

https://infosec.exchange/@funcuddles/110017002750658359

Ok so like one of the reasons you as an entrepreneur go with a bank like SVB is the ability to borrow money against your next fundraise. Aka, secure venture debt

Most banks don’t want to lend money to businesses that are just rapidly setting it on fire with no profitability in sight, but the idea of venture debt (and to some extent I guess the personal loans SVB makes to founders, although I have no experience with that) is that the money is secured against your ability to fundraise a future round and pay it back (or in rare cases reach a profitability/IPO milestone).

Part of the diligence is looking at the fundamentals of the business and “can you reach that next milestone for fundraise”, but it’s also hugely relationship driven. The bank is also looking at things like your VC partners, who not only have implicitly ‘vouched’ for you In that they put money in your company, but also now have some incentive to see you (and their investment) succeed. Part of the reason a bank like SVB is willing to make a risky bet loaning money is their outstanding partnerships with the Sequoia’s and Andreesens of the world: in that they have worked with these venture firms and their backed companies for years and made money with them.

Therefore, a company backed by a brand name venture firm that has worked with SVB for years is gonna have a better experience raising good terms venture debt than a co that has raised 10m from “No Name Or Track Record Fund”. Additionally, if “Bad Ventures” venture firm’s portfolio is constantly defaulting on the loans that SVBs provides them because the companies can’t fundraise and/or die, SVB probably isn’t gonna continue to offer money to “Bad Venture” portfolio companies [or at least not without higher levels of scrutiny/less attractive rates].

This is all a roundabout way of saying that the venture firm’s track record and relationship with the bank matters.


So here’s my question-

If part of the risk calculation for an SVB to offer venture debt is the promise of these venture firms to be good partners, what signal has this bank run sent to other SVB-like venture lenders? 

To me, I’d be *very* hesitant on trusting VC partnerships in the future as part of my risk calculus. The root causes of the SVB collapse seem to be multi-dimensional, but certainly part of it was the run triggered by panicking VCs telling their companies to abandon ship.

This might be a purely psychological thing, but if I’m an SVB counting on these VC firms as long term *partners* along for the ride to make money, I'd reconsider that, big time. These supposed partners have proven to act in ways that are intensely hostile to my business.

And I wonder if that is going to tighten up the venture debt market, by like, a lot.

If I’m optimistic about anything short-term regarding AI it’s probably that it’s going to force us to burn existing social media to the ground and seriously re-invent online communities. *How* that happens is a little unclear and, no doubt, it’s going to be very, very hard. But to be honest, it’s time.

Honestly, I hate Twitter as a platform for having meaningful engagement and connection. I hate the tweet limit, which encourages pithy takes over thoughtful consideration, and I hate the blatant outrage manipulation that’s being compounded by malicious interest campaigns and bots. It’s still marginally useful as a newsfeed though- however, even that is becoming less and less attractive, because I don’t trust half of what is on my feed.

And I just don’t like being pissed off all the time - but what primarily upsets me isn’t the crises of the hour gets blasted across you in trending topic tweet-waves, but the way social media is being used to cement divisiveness, instead of dialogue that fosters empathy, perspective sharing, and ultimately problem solving together.

I *really* don’t like witnessing what I assume are probably generally reasonable people get wound up and engaging in tribal wars because so much of it is *clear* manipulation by whatever powers benefit from inciting such divisiveness. *Stop* being manipulated into thinking half of the world is your enemy, because that actually serves the real enemies out there: the parties that benefit from society infighting or rallying people to their outrage causes. They benefit because we're distracted with whose side we are on, rather than holding ALL power-holders accountable to drive positive change.

So why am I “optimistic” about AI? As LLMs become cheaper, the Twitters etc of the world going to be flooded with even more junk content and even more manipulation, except the scale of automation pushing out propaganda is going to allow this to happen more effectively and efficiently, and it will become more and more indistinguishable from content generated by real people behind the screens.

The ratio of fake shit:real people posting stuff is going to be out of this world, and that… might be okay?

Because at that point, a lightbulb may click. I hope [hope!] People will realize this and be like - what the fuck?

And log off.

Who wants to engage in a social network once that veil is pierced? People don’t come on to Twitter to have debates and conversations with computers, to influence a following of bot responses. How attractive will Twitter be when you internalize that the ‘tribe’ or ‘followers’ you’ve built online is just a bunch of AI automation?

How much fun is it it to log onto an online first person shooter and realize you’ve played an entire game with bots?

People engage online for a sense of community and interaction with real human beings, and as soon as they are suspicious the community they’re participating is *not that*, I believe they are going to peace the f out.

The question is, what will arise in its place?

Will we be able to deliver on a new technology that delivers on that promise?

I am hopeful the answer is yes. 🤞

The other interesting thought-exercise around this SVB black-swan debacle for someone who knows nothing about banks is: How could have SVB have reacted to stop a m-fing bank run?

Obviously blasting out "we are fine y'all if you don't withdraw your money" isn't gonna do shit (and clearly didn't).

But they had a sophisticated set of depositors (all businesses effectively) to which they could have announced something like: "10% interest over the next 60 days for anything over $1m you keep in your account." [Or name your compelling interest rate]

Sure, this would be painful in terms of short term losses, but uh... they'd still be in business?

It feels like there has to be some sort of playbook that banks must have to deal with this? What would actually work?

The SVB collapse is very sad for a lot of good companies and their employees, but goddamn if it isn't hilarious to witness the "libertarians" of the VC world suddenly clamour for socialism...in response to a bank run they actually orchestrated 😆

"Banks should just hold our money for free"