Tag: Capitalism

Categories
Finance

Day 225 & Explaining DAOs to Moms

My mother is a sharp woman. She’s interested in economics but if you asked her to explain securities law she’d probably shrug. Not her expertise. She did survive our family bankruptcy during the tech IPO implosion she’s got a slight intuition of securities law in the context of consumer protection but that’s about it.

So I was impressed that she was able to sum up the recent infrastructure bill’s attempt to make crypto foot the bill very neatly.

“So they are trying to convince us that people who program computers to run math problems are actually bankers?”

That’s…actually not too far off. She seemed to grok that this was a misunderstanding of the basic technology, who builds it and it’s purpose. She was glad the amendment didn’t pass. Clearly people who build computer applications are not the same as the guy at Charles Schwab who looks after her retirement account.

We were discussing it, as I was trying to explaining PR DAO and why I wanted to help organize an activist group of folks whose purpose was execute public relations campaigns to tell stories about crypto. I explained to her that rather than having a bunch of executives who make decisions we would write a set of rules that automatically determine how we make decisions. Those rules would let all members of the organization vote on how we wanted to deploy our assets and pursue our agenda. She liked the tag line “rules not rulers” a lot. She’s pretty into freedom. A smart contract was pretty intuitive to my mom.

Where she got confused was the governance tokens. Not how they worked. Again it was intuitive to her that depending on what you contributed and how invested you were in the organization that you would a different say in what got done. Maybe each token represents one vote. Maybe some people have more votes because they are more invested. Presumably we figure that out in our smart contract. What she didn’t get was why the government thinks a voting mechanism is a security.

“So the government treats the way your group organizes decision making as if those little voting symbols were stock in IBM? That’s fucking stupid”

Now granted my mother probably can’t explain what a security is (she’s got the basic idea that they are like a type of money and Boomers like to own stocks). She gets why they are regulated the way they are in a general sense. She’s lost money on badly governed companies. So sure it’s fine that the government has some rules for that sort of thing.

But even to a lay person like my mom it seems pretty clear that something meant to represent ownership in a money making enterprise and something meant to help organize voting and decision making are separate ideas. She seemed to think maybe they ought to distinguish between the two ideas. Because you know the last time we came up with clever ideas like the corporation the whole world changed. Evolving them again to be autonomous could make for the same level of change. If my mom got that in a half an hour phone call seems like maybe the professionals at the SEC could work it out too.

Categories
Finance Startups

Day 216 and Annihilation

My parents were hippies. Thanks in particular to my mother’s great interest in the spiritual world, I spent time in ashrams, communes and retreats as a kid. One was a great big sprawling former summer camp in the Catskills. I adored spending time there.

There is something amusing about being in a Christian family who has decided to study Kashmir Shivaism in an old Borscht Belt resort. But it was thanks to these adventures in expanding our minds and spiritual horizons that I learned about Shiva the Destroyer. And Shiva has had a profound impact on how I think about startups.

I won’t get into the full theology of Shiva but he creates, protects and transforms the universe. His power is set against the goddess Shakti (sorry Parvati can’t get into your whole deal) for a kind of death and creation in one balanced whole. To this day, I chant Shiva’s mantra “Om Namah Shivaya” when I mediate. It more broadly has a meaning of the “universal consciousness is one” which I tend to interpret as ego death. Shiva is the destroyer of my ego for which I am grateful.

The idea that creation and destruction were interlinked, and indeed matched, spoke to me as a child. Some kind of pre-rational understanding of the first law of thermodynamics. Energy is neither created nor destroyed. Maybe Shiva and Shakti are just godhead metaphors for the eternal spiral of creation and destruction that we’ve come to dimly understand thanks to the study of physics. I’m neither a theologian nor a physicist.

But I am a business person. Shiva lead me to appreciate the economist Joseph Schumpeter. You see, metaphysics aside, I took the lesson that destruction wasn’t inherently bad quite to my heart. That sometimes, for new things to be formed in the world, old manifestations needed to be destroyed or transformed. Schumpeter’s gale or, more commonly, creative destruction, held my imagination.

I thought to myself “dismal science my ass!” Economics has dedicated an entire discipline to the study of apocalypses and the utopia’s that are created in their wake and we call it good business management. Wealth by way of eschatology. Obviously I was hooked.

According to Schumpeter, the “gale of creative destruction” describes the “process of industrial mutation that continuously revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one”

Startups are known for their creative destruction. Small changes and innovations slowly, and then all at once, implode and destroy old ways of doing business. if we are lucky more wealth is created in the process. Sometimes enough to change entire cultures and people for the better. And sometimes not. But if there was ever going to be a god of startups I think it would be Shiva.

Categories
Biohacking Emotional Work

Day 215 and Leisure

I’ve got a bad relationship with work. Since I was a teenager I’ve been compulsive about the idea of hard work. I don’t know how I got to have a problem with the Protestant Work Ethic but it seems likely I developed it long before I read Max Weber and found it’s comforting rationalizations about work’s inherent morality.

I’m fascinated by things like commodity aesthetics, the history of consumption, and theories of leisure & status. Partially because I got a kick out of supposing I was a better person than those wretched lazy types. I wasn’t so sophisticated to sneer “rentier” class as kid but I was well on my way to veneration of hard work and productive capital. An economics degree finished the job.

This was compounded by growing up in a family that worshipped the culture of Silicon Valley. The innovation of computers and the people that worked all hours to bring their creativity to the world were the most important people on the planet. They hadn’t quite crossed the cultural rubicon of power that the tech industry has now, but the power of making the future was hard work and heady stuff even before it captured the mainstream. I wanted to change the world like the people my father admired

There was a time when computing and automation raised questions of a new era of leisure. If we could move all of the work we’d previously done manually to automated systems perhaps humans could ascend to The Culture of Ian M Bank’s novels. In a distant future of abundance, sentient AIs run industry and production, so humanity can do, well, whatever it likes.

But we haven’t achieved a post scarcity world. If anything accumulating resources and showing you’ve done it by the rules of the meritocracy makes hard work even more crucial. You’ve got to play and win two games. You’ve got to make the money and show you’ve demonstrated the proper status while doing it. It seems like leisure is losing the battle quite soundly.

I’ve been pushing all year to get back to hard work. I’ve worked hard at my health. I’ve committed myself to biohacking. But really what if the obsession with working myself to the bone is killing me? I’ve been completely relaxed as I prepared for a medical procedure this week. I’ve never felt better. Which forced me to ask myself if maybe I better come to live leisure like the way I have loved work. It might be a much better life for me. The future sentient AIs might approve as well.

Categories
Aesthetics

Day 214 and Their Rules

“If he wants to play their game, then he has to learn their rules.” – Downton Abby

I’ve been on a bit of a kick with taking notes for my grand unified theory of shitposting. Naturally I’ve been obsessed with the British aristocracy melting down during modernity in Downtown Abby. A great deal of class implosions make for excellent drama. Class and it’s privileges are crucial to understanding who can get away with what. And I’m becoming rather sure that shitposting is a way of changing the rules, through satire, of who gets to accumulate social capital.

I own a reasonably good library on the intersection of class, wealth, and capitalism. I suspect that sort of preoccupation isn’t that odd of a leaning when you come from family that jumped from working class to bourgeois and had set its sights even higher for their children. And it’s reasonably amusing that I file the topics together in my head and on my bookshelf.

Class, Greed, Liquidated, Capitalism and of course Zizek.

Money has never been the determining factor for class, but the American preoccupation with capital has led us to develop elaborate social mores to try to distance that we have overlapped wealth and status into the term “upper class” in this county. We don’t have peerage so things like taste and creativity has come to dominate. We absolutely hate the nouveau rich and disdain people with bad taste.

I spent a number of years working in “style” which is the overarching set of professions that dominate who has class. I worked for luxury houses, founded a cosmetics brand and even did marketing for a very high end gym. All of the kinds of things you can buy to demonstrate you have good taste and thus are worthy of being considered upper class.

Honestly it seems easier to have to learn the manners of the aristocracy than to have to bother with keeping up on style. At least those assholes had a consistent dress code. But an elaborate set of social distinctions overlaying signifiers on who has taste and credentials is fundamentally more accessible. Hipster are social progress.

Showing you’ve got the capacity to read social signals has lead to a lot of weird shit. Our current preoccupation with critical theory for one. But it’s opened up class status to people who are capable of demonstrating their understanding of what it takes to occupy their place on the ladder. And yes I think shitposting is the new Harvard degree or house in Newport. I guess it’s no weirder than marrying someone with an estate on a cold island off the coast of Europe.

Categories
Finance Startups

Day 202 and Show Me Anything

I’m lucky to see work from founders at the very earliest stages. If you have a problem you are solving for chaotic world I’m generally interested in seeing it even if it’s just in the idea phase. But you have to show me you’ve got a plan to build a product. Any product is fine. Just show me something! Show me how you have the capacity to build even if you suck at it.

Bobby Goodlatte captured some of the sentiment I feel on the subject well with this exasperated Tweet.

What’s a “builder”? Show me something. Anything. Just show me one pixel you’ve created. That’s what a builder is. That’s why PM’s don’t qualify.

Sometimes it can feel hard to build something, anything, when you are very experienced. This is a problem I’ve seen across all kinds of impressive people. Academics, government folks and higher end finance folks, former c-suite executives. They know what good looks like so anything they can physically make with their own two hands will all look like crap.

I’d even go so far as to suggest there is an inverse relationship between how much you obfuscate your lack of existing product and your credentials. There are other corollaries on that basic theme. How comprehensible your product is right now is inversely related to how extensive your service layer is at the moment.

I see a lot of brilliant, extremely credentialed people solving big problems, but because making money is important they will pitch what amount to service companies without an existing product. But they will use extensive jargon and hand waving visionary opportunities to hide the fact that there isn’t any product layer yet. Which is weird because like eventually I’ll find out right? You wouldn’t want to trick your investors on the state of play.

I’d encourage you to stop trying to hide that fact. Don’t be embarrassed that you can’t make things to your standards. None of us can. New things always look like shit. Just own up to that reality and you will find more help from folks who will want to help make it better. Stop showing me CAGR and TAM and possibilities as a way of hiding that you haven’t built a product yet. It’s ok. You don’t need to have built something great yet.

Admit it. Show me some wireframes and a roadmap. I’ll take that way more seriously. In fact, I’ll probably overweight you showing me exactly what you do have and how you plan to use funds to improve it. That’s how much startup people value just building the damn thing.

Categories
Aesthetics Emotional Work

Day 197 and Status Anxiety

I’m becoming quite bored of feeling like shit as I go on maybe day 8 or 9 of a poor reaction to an anti-viral. It’s not fun when the cure is worse than the disease. I noticed something fascinating as more and more “days off” piled up. I’ve still got a lot of emotional shit when it comes to being sick.

My anxiety over being seen as weak, lazy or lacking in willpower started to compound the more days I’ve needed to recover. What will people think of me that just as I’m making a comeback to full time work that I let myself get waylaid by a virus? Every project and meeting that needed canceling felt like I should accompany it with an apology tour. I felt like I owed everyone my time and energy. I felt ashamed.

The social striving and status chasing that have gripped the aspirational class seems to have its claws firmly in my psyche. At least when it comes to work, I’m convinced I must always be working to be “better.” Where the fuck did this self limiting belief come from?

Who cares if I needed a week off to cope with health care needs when I’ve been on medical leave for nearly two years? What is another week. Why am I so anxious to show that I’m capable of going back to work? Who the fuck cares! It’s not as if I’m dependent on a salary to survive. I’m not chasing a resume or CV polish on LinkedIn. I can just not work.

Technically I’ve already made it out of the status social climbing games. I’ve got money. I’ve got traditional credentials. I have a well compensated skill set that is easily hired out for income without sacrificing much of my time. I should not be experiencing any class anxiety at all. I should happily go into the leisure class and not concern myself that my workaholism isn’t possible for health reasons. And yet I’m absolutely panicked that I’ll be see as lazy and unreliable every time I have a minor setback.

It’s abundantly clear that aspirational class signals, especially around meritocracy and knowledge work, are as bogus as Edwardian England’s aristocracy. Class division can be upended if you just stop giving a fuck. But I’m experiencing exactly this anxiety noted in The Hedgehog Review.

The aspirationals’ endless pursuit of better can produce psychic restlessness and doubts beneath the façade of confidence and accomplishment.

I’ve always thought of my habits as being high status. I read science fiction, make a hobby of macroeconomics, and pursue healthy biohacking experiments. Of course, that I think of these things as having status is precisely what makes me signaling it low status. The perception of me caring so fucking much is proof that I don’t think my status in life is secure. I’m no better than the middle class strivers in Downtown Abbey who miss manner cues. How embarrassing!

But if I can admit that I’m anxious about my place in the world maybe it’s a sign I’m not so beholden to class systems after all. I’ve just now admitted that I’m afraid of how I will be perceived if my climb back to health isn’t perfectly stage managed. I hope that is the first step in letting it go. Fixating on fear and anxiety isn’t great for physical health. So I’m putting it out there that I’m afraid of how I’ll be seen by others. And I’m letting it go.

Categories
Finance Startups

Day 181 and Thesis Trends

As I was putting down scratch notes for Chaotic.Capital’s thesis yesterday on the types of businesses we like I thought I’d do a bit more stream of consciousness writing to discuss some of the mega-trends that I see driving returns over the next decade.

Embedded Functionality

We think more and more businesses will be born of the embedded functionality inside protocol layers or data sets. Many protocols have functionality embedded across different layers of utility and functionality. For instance, the new consumer bank is an API at heart. The protocol layer is the API and the embedded functionality is the financial services layers enabled through the protocol or application layer. Need another example. Retail sales data and demand trends give rise to fashion retailers. Think of StitchFix, the clothing brand is the embedded functionality of its aggregate trend, recommendation and demand data set.


Unbundling Trust

Trust based networks rule businesses like insurance, retail banking, law and financing. But what if trust was unbundled from institutional nexuses of power. What if we built trust from value creation instead of value extraction. DeFi wants to build permission-less trust based on a protocol. Its entirely possible we bundle trust back into the wisdom of crowds and markets. Wall Street Bets is an aggregate source of unbundled trust. Figuring out what layers can be stripped away for more efficiency and what layers we need for safety and peace of mind are unsolved problems.


Data Ingestion Is Value Creation. The more capacity we have for data collection the more demand we will have for data ingestion and processing. While we can say sure businesses rely on the protocol and data and that unbundles trust, that’s not the full picture. We will need people who make sense of the chaos for the muggles. Ordered systems give the impression of serendipity for their users (an introduction on a social network, a recommendation for a loan, an outfit customized for you) but the work required to intake and order the data to create value for users is a big hairy problem. And there is a lot money to be made in those. Centralization may come at this layer especially in user experience.

Flexible Asset Weighting.

We are also interested in businesses that know where they stand with capital needs for their business. If you are executional business you need a thin layer of assets to succeed. To quote Roy Bahat “hot swap” startups are executional businesses. A slim horizontal physical layer to take advantage of low financing costs means return on equity is greater for these asset light businesses. If it’s deep innovation then you can be asset heavy. We like those just fine too. But knowing where you stand and anchoring your business case on your asset weighting can give you an edge. That lets you be capabilities based and find opportunities, particularly as debt as is in a commoditization cycle.


All of this is to say we are thinking across a number of system level problems to unearth startups that will give flexibility to individuals, organizations, industries and hopefully the entire economy. Incumbents won’t see who is coming to beat them because they won’t recognize the new predators. They prioritize value systems that at won’t remain true as systemic chaos erodes inefficient businesses and institutions.

Categories
Finance Startups

Day 180 and Thesis

As I see more pitches and work with more entrepreneurs I am finding it helpful to have my thoughts codified on paper. That way if you are interested in working with me you have a chance to vet me. Knowing what I want to see in a deal and what just isn’t a fit saves entrepreneurs time. So I’m going to doodle a bit on what I do and don’t like.

Chaotic.Capital has 4 key investment areas. But they are really just different levels of working with an uncertain future: at the individual level, the organization level, the systems level and the planetary level.

  • Personal Flexibility is critical when it’s harder to make long term lifestyle decisions (housing, health, children) – how do we allow people to make those decisions without anchoring themselves to place or time horizons that limit optionality. Businesses like marketplaces, preparedness, personal safety, service & product exchanges, health tech, longevity, and alternative credentials.
  • Organizational Agility is a differentiator for businesses in rapidly changing landscapes, so we invest in software and tooling that provides leverage for small teams to have a bigger impact or bigger teams to act more discretely and independently. Businesses like software as a service, cloud infrastructure, collaboration & coordination software, DAOS (decentralized autonomous organizations), automation software, and memetic and organizational aids.
  • Systemic Arbitrage opportunities are even greater in chaos. Working through systems level chaos helps individual and organizations protect against cascade and systemic collapse risk, mitigate political chaos, regulatory uncertainty, memetic crowd and mob behaviors, or medical chaos, just to name a few. Businesses like intelligence, decentralized finance tooling and exchanges, cryptocurrencies, bots & analytics.
  • Climate or planetary risk is an existential risk that is already fucking with our world – we like companies mitigate the chaos of climate change while profiting on the risk. Businesses like mobility, insurance, green tech.

What I don’t like to hear are pitches for things that are tangentially related or a forced connection. Sometimes folks will try to get us excited about a problem they’ve already solved and are scaling but we are looking for longer time horizons. There are plenty of amazing startups that have great returns but aren’t a fit for us. We really do want the crazy weird stuff that is going to take a while.

We don’t need you to know where you are going. We want to see ten or twenty year out timelines. What would life look like without school? How about a world where we didn’t pay taxes based on our geographic location. How about a world where we automate how our attention is allocated. Or a world where our financial power isn’t rooted through centralized trusted powers. We want 1000x leverage on change.

I’ll write more later this week about the types of companies I don’t want to invest in. Not because I don’t like them but because they just don’t match what this fund is meant to do.

Categories
Finance

Day 163 and Favors

Some professional arenas are driven by the favor trading of social capital.

I’ve got a gut sense that this is true on the two poles of commodity products and services. The middle ground has a lot more nuance and is thus less susceptible to favor trading, as it’s clear what drives price and value of service. With complete commodities (identical replacement value) and the non-fungible (not interchangeable or replaceable) there are not simple price or value anchors. This makes it more likely your purchase or choice will be driven by the perception of social capital. We will do favors for those with higher status or by the recommendation of those we trust.

Interchangeable commodity products trade on price, which means favors from across the ecosystem act as the grease in otherwise equivalent deals. Think suppliers of everything from lumber to textiles. If the price is the same maybe you buy from someone you like who took you out to dinner. Or you buy because that person has a good reputation in the community so you use the person your neighbor recommended. This seems intuitively true of commodity services like accounting, plumbing or roofing. Within certain bounds of quality, a 2×4 or a roofing bid should fall into the same bucket so it’s ok to pick whoever feels best. That’s why it’s susceptible to favors and social capital exchange.

On the other end, extremely differentiated non commodity products are equally prone to being tipped by favors. Think professional services like public relations that are very hard to compare. A publicist with favors to trade gets their clients the best coverage. A reporter who has a lot of sources can trade them in to get a quote for a story. Venture capital is one of the least commodified types of capital, a founder will pick one firm over another not just based on the price of a term sheet but whether others recommend them. Reputation matters a lot. Social capital is what gets a deal done, a nudge to consider someone will push you into a cap table.

Not convinced? Think about a product that exists in the middle like clothing from a brand you know but isn’t connected to you in any other way. This is the least susceptible to favor trading or the pressures of social capital.

We can intuit a dress made from quality fabrics and a recognizable brand has a set cost because the brand of the designer is not interchangeable (maybe with others in their category but Prada isn’t the same as Old Navy) and the cost of the fabric is transparent. A silk blouse can’t ever get too cheap on a one off basis. Both the brand and the fabrics set the bounds of the prices.

I didn’t really have a point in writing this other than being curious about what impacts how we pick what to purchase and what sets the bounds of our pricing. We are in a narrative cycle around inflation and work shortages which is having an impact on how willingness to to spend or hire.

So be careful if something seems too expensive but comes highly recommended. Be equally wary if something is particularly cheap even if a friend likes it. Look for the sweet spot of pricing and reputation that is based on market price beyond your in-group.

Categories
Finance

Day 160 and Starting with Money

The best articulation of why anyone gives a shit about currencies in crypto (as opposed to just focusing on bigger structural problems of macroeconomics) is that you need foundational layers to build a new economy. You need a currency before you can have an economy. Ryan Sean Adams at Bankless gave me an aha moment with this quote. You need money.

The bankless model is simple: you hold the majority of your crypto wealth in crypto money. Specifically crypto commodity money. Today that means ETH and BTC.

Wealth is different than money. And crypto wealth should be in crypto money. Like yes, we get it, assets get tokenized. Crypto folks are wild for tokens. But that’s more of a DeFi problem. Financialization has allowed us to buy so many cool kinds of financial products that we forget that shit like derivatives were invented by normal dudes who traded soybeans for a living in the 70s.

But we needed soybeans to be traded first. There is an order of operations to setting up an economy. That means a system where folks grow soybeans and sell them, or turn them into another product like oil, or sell their labor as an accountant to the oil company that buys the soybeans. Because we don’t trade soybeans for steak. We trade it for dollars and then we buy a steak to enjoy at home with our spouse and kids. Circle of life! Circle of trade.

So first things first (I’m the realist) we to understand that understand that currency is crucial to the functioning of but also the first step in an economy expanding. We need to read up a bit on the history of money. PBS has a NOVA series that is pretty comprehensive. If you like stories Thomas Levenson’s Money for Nothing is a not-actually-tall tale about how the scientific revolution lead to a financial revolution (plus it has boats). Or learn how Kublai Khan invented paper money which seemed even crazier than a digital currency at the time.

If we start with a digital currency who knows what we can build from there. Balaji believes (and I agree) that it’s the first step in forming a digital country. But money comes first.