> I don't think "put your money where your mouth is" is a good argument. A16z can be subject to prisoner's dilemma of our collective cultural decline and simultaneously have genuine desire to get out of this predicament we're all in.
I think it's ultimately the only argument. The best way out of a prisoner's dilemma-like situation is for the central authority above the participants to resolve it unilaterally for them[0]. The next best thing is for one of the players to try and force the new equilibrium, hoping they'll be able to survive the disadvantaged position for longer than it takes the situation to reach that equilibrium[1].
Does A16z have enough money and clout to unilaterally push the market until a better equilibrium, one of "building", establishes itself? I don't know. That would be "putting your money where your mouth is", but maybe they know they can't pull it off.
I guess the next best alternative is to take it slow and do a soft push. Write pieces like these, in hopes their message will resonate with other market players. Or maybe it already does? Maybe this article is a mating call[3], a test for whether other funds think the same and will follow suit if A16z decides to put their money where their mouth is, so that everyone can stop funding bullshit software startups and start pouring money into securing a future?
--
[0] - In a prisoner's dilemma involving actual prisoners, you could have a mob boss declaim that they'll kill any prisoner that defects.
[1] - A possible example would be Tesla, which initially faced ridicule for pushing the electric cars; fast forward couple of years, and it managed to force the market to accept the viability of electric transportation, and now all major automakers want the piece of that cake. Which, from Musk's point of view, is Mission. Fucking. Accomplished. [2].
[3] - See this excellent comment that introduced me to the idea: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22798808. In that case, a mating call is a "publicly executed conspiracy to fix prices", but I think it can be generalized as "a method to for coordinating in cases where doing so overtly could be illegal". Which may not always be a bad thing.
I think it's ultimately the only argument. The best way out of a prisoner's dilemma-like situation is for the central authority above the participants to resolve it unilaterally for them[0]. The next best thing is for one of the players to try and force the new equilibrium, hoping they'll be able to survive the disadvantaged position for longer than it takes the situation to reach that equilibrium[1].
Does A16z have enough money and clout to unilaterally push the market until a better equilibrium, one of "building", establishes itself? I don't know. That would be "putting your money where your mouth is", but maybe they know they can't pull it off.
I guess the next best alternative is to take it slow and do a soft push. Write pieces like these, in hopes their message will resonate with other market players. Or maybe it already does? Maybe this article is a mating call[3], a test for whether other funds think the same and will follow suit if A16z decides to put their money where their mouth is, so that everyone can stop funding bullshit software startups and start pouring money into securing a future?
--
[0] - In a prisoner's dilemma involving actual prisoners, you could have a mob boss declaim that they'll kill any prisoner that defects.
[1] - A possible example would be Tesla, which initially faced ridicule for pushing the electric cars; fast forward couple of years, and it managed to force the market to accept the viability of electric transportation, and now all major automakers want the piece of that cake. Which, from Musk's point of view, is Mission. Fucking. Accomplished. [2].
[2] - https://xkcd.com/810/
[3] - See this excellent comment that introduced me to the idea: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22798808. In that case, a mating call is a "publicly executed conspiracy to fix prices", but I think it can be generalized as "a method to for coordinating in cases where doing so overtly could be illegal". Which may not always be a bad thing.