Ponzi Scheme = the top takes the cream and leaves others to deal with the rotting milk. A potential bad scenario example is...Uber. Stratospheric valuations that will offer excellent payoffs to most investors at IPO but by the time public markets come in, the top value has already been actualized and the narrative "it's a giant market" collapses once the reality that it has been achieved through high CACs and unsustainable cash flow levels.
Howard Marks - a bond investor - puts it well. If you are a professional investor you cannot afford to buy into overpriced stocks because by definition they have already topped. The basic unit here is the "buy low sell high" concept. This is why seed and Series A has been most attractive to VCs - equity is cheapest, if you invest in the right companies.
Tech stock and private tech is overvalued as far as the public buy side is concerned. This has been absorbed because the market is doing well. Private tech isn't going public for this exact reason: the public demand isn't meeting the private valuations. This is bound to crash at some point, most likely when the leading companies (uber, air bnb) are put under the microscope.
I don't know what will happen to all these companies flush with cash. They could be in business for years, even decades.
What problem are you trying to solve is the only question you should be asking. Given your background and given that you are useless in terms of building products, you need to excel at connecting with users and if you want a SaaS company then you need to work within industries you know well.
Second question is, how big is your market. That is the only question that really matters to serious VCs.
I'll be honest though the fact that there are two "business guys" and only one developer is a big red flag and I would not get involved with this company. "Business guys" tend to not care for or understand technology and the reality is that in the tech space you win with technological advantage. Period. All best tech cos were started by developers (Google Facebook, Microsoft, all SaaS companies I know of even if the founders were not coding at the end they were developers by training - marc benioff, Larry Ellison) or had genius developers coupled with brilliant sales people (Apple).
The best technologists are driven and are not usually fond of "ideas" from business people. Also, remember that ML is an area that will be conquered by large companies, FANGs. It's not worth wasting your time on, if you are not a technology person.
Given what you mention about your background, I would focus on creating a company that is based on a problem the industry at least one of you knows really well, and have light technology because you are not going to win in the tech space if you have two business founders (my true honest opinion) not nowadays. Something like consulting, something where sales matters more than tech. Business people HAVE to be good at 1. strategy and 2. market so if you're not that's a red flag. Maybe you guys like hanging out, a business partnership is not a great idea.
Hmmm I can relate to what you are describing. I have some of that and was diagnosed with ADD in my 30s and I am a woman. Diagnose and medication helped immensely. It's as if you can't process too much signal at once. There is such a thing as asperger's spectrum. I cannot deal with high-pitched noises and noise in general really disturbs me.
Howard Marks - a bond investor - puts it well. If you are a professional investor you cannot afford to buy into overpriced stocks because by definition they have already topped. The basic unit here is the "buy low sell high" concept. This is why seed and Series A has been most attractive to VCs - equity is cheapest, if you invest in the right companies.
Tech stock and private tech is overvalued as far as the public buy side is concerned. This has been absorbed because the market is doing well. Private tech isn't going public for this exact reason: the public demand isn't meeting the private valuations. This is bound to crash at some point, most likely when the leading companies (uber, air bnb) are put under the microscope.
I don't know what will happen to all these companies flush with cash. They could be in business for years, even decades.