Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by yieldcrv 309 days ago
People talk about physical goods and differences in scaling needs, one thing that bothers or excites me is noticing what the market tolerates.

Many companies employed (and still employ) orders of magnitude more people than necessary just to be taken seriously. The executive team and board is stacked and diluting ownership just to get in rooms for more support and investors.

This was arguably never necessary, and in many markets people still believe they need to stack the deck and print employment numbers for any incorporated idea they have. The market reality changes far faster than the culture and I love seeing evolution of markets where individuals test a theoretical reality and do it.

I'm glad that people noticed and tried to keep ownership with parallel voting classes, and smaller personnel. I think there are some negatives and that exchanges can go back to enforcing listing guidelines which factor in ownership structure. But even amongst private companies and family offices, I think its interesting when people approach wealth acquisition in ways that match the liquidity of the markets more than the culture, for example, most billionaires stop trading or trying anything because they are afraid of losing money. While the liqiudity from the central bank and market reforms has gotten so much higher over just the last 10 years, that it was only a matter of time before someone tried to trade up to a $60bn portfolio size in the public markets (Bill Hwang). Its still only a matter of time before someone does it successfully and takes it to far larger amounts. Elon Musk sold nearly $40bn of Tesla shares in his court forced acquisition of Twitter, and that's just one stock ticker. Just a matter of time before someone leverages the liquidity in a more diverse portfolio of momentum stocks and has hundreds of billions without any personnel around them. I'm excited to see this capability.

Being able to convert assets to another asset at this speed and scale is something state actors and even Mansa Musa could never do. And the goal isn't done until everything can be valued within milliseconds and its value transferred to another owner, fractionally, with derivatives for future delivery on top.

Liquidity is the game. Just move to the next idea if liquidity isn't there as companies like Kodak from days of old are not necessary.

2 comments

Order of magnitude, sure perhaps, even if not a given. But orders of magnitude? No, that doesn't match with my experience or historical evidence at all.
language exists to convey a shared concept, it was conveyed adequately in singular or plural form
I’m having a lot of trouble parsing your post. You’re excited that billionaires will be able to swing around more billions than ever… to employ less people? What?
I’m excited that overhead costs aren’t much or necessary, and the reasons they were seen as necessary had long overstayed their welcome

People that need income or capital to play this game at all will have to pursue another path of getting that, this post isn’t about their options and private sector employment by billionaires isn’t the only possibility