Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

One danger I see is that unlike an insurance company, which does a serious amount of due diligence and selection of the risks it takes on, this company/idea completely leaves it up to the founders/"investors" (however you wish to call it) to make judgement calls about their own and other people's risk, without much pooled knowledge or history. I doubt founders are very good at that.

When an insurance company sells a policy, they have something on the line in terms of risk themselves -- they have to pay out. Here, the company just acts as facilitator for founders to spread risk however they self-organize to do so. Is that likely to be right? Who cares if some people get burned when something inevitably goes bad in the pool?

It's much like the general tech company issue that thinks all the complexity and need for oversight, etc. can be externalized to others to deal with. It'll police itself. In the meantime, rake in your percentage for being the platform.

I think an idea like this will take much more work (or the verification / pooling / trust sides) than they expect -- for it to work well and people to be willing to join. Otherwise, bad money will drive out good.



Village Capital has been testing out the model of having peer-selected investment for ten years now-- https://vilcap.com/entrepreneurs/peer-selected-investment


Not only that, Erik has done a good job cheerleading the concept of risk pooling for founders: https://twitter.com/eriktorenberg/status/1123331923466522624


These are great points. Someone else addressed much of it but one thing to add is founders can actually sniff out each others' BS, sometimes better than career VCs. Seems to be common knowledge in SV that builders make the best investors: https://www.fastcompany.com/90266921/alexis-ohanian-on-why-f...




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: