[ssalazar]

VCs aren't primarily looking for brilliant visionaries, even if its a popular narrative--the (high) risk/reward profile of a business venture is at least as important to them as the character of its founding team.

The thesis behind Moth Minds seems to be that there is a lot of interesting/valuable* work that could be done that doesn't fit any of the typical funding models (VC, small business loan, burn through personal savings, Patreon, tips, etc.). Like Xerox PARC type projects or PhD research without the gatekeeping. This kind of work doesn't exactly require a singular brilliant visionary, but it helps to provide a financial incentive to lure someone with a unique vision from a comfortable tech salary.

*for flexible interpretations of value

[fuzzfactor]

Way back before the digital age when software was still an insignificant component of an overall technology spectrum, this was so long ago that it was a completely different economic landscape too.

There was a prominent recognition in major companies that for positions where a visionary ability was needed, they offered a considerable amount of compensation intentionally as "temptation" to keep the moths drawn to the flame rather than spreading out in an unforseen direction to do their own thing.

Whether that was starting a new business or going to a place like Bell Labs where you would be more likely to pursue your own strongest interests, this was all balanced out based on the need by the biggest payers for the most visible and persuadable high-performers.

This was actually a limiting factor.

Now the remaining less visible & persuadable high-performers of the same caliber are way harder to come by precisely because of the visibility issue, even though there are many more of them.

This is a vast resource that could potentially be leveraged to overwhelming benefit by an alternative paying force that has been absent from the landscape for all practical purposes.