| Help me out here because I'm having trouble understanding this blog post. >By definition, if everybody agrees that something is worth investing in, the return on that investment will correspond to the market average. Formally, “market” is simply “consensus on correct pricing”. It’s the average, the norm, the wisdom of the crowd. Generational companies are outliers, happening several deviations away from that norm. If we accept this definition to be true, it must follow that consensus and successful startups are antithetical. Um, but then who is investing that makes a company "Generational company"? If you're hugely successful and your market value huge ... someone will be investing and there will be demand for more investment, so it's not like you're entirely disconnected from the market... Or are we talking about everything BEFORE the market invests a lot of money? The later section on AI and wrappers and competition made more sense to me (not to say I agree, I think I got it), but the whole idea that you should be heavily concerned with potential competition in the context of a start up is interesting to me as I think most start ups fail ... because nobody wants their product, not because of direct competition. Generally the post felt like a blob of "start up speak" to me, and I couldn't really pick out what the big insight here was overall other than maybe something like 'bet big / weird'. But maybe that's just me. |
Execution matters/mattered in those example cases, not the bet/founding hypothesis, of which in all cases there were dime a dozen. If the bet matters, why didn't those identical bets win?
Anyway.