"Founders are expected to adopt a linear wealth mindset and take big risks that maximize expected value as cogs in the venture capital machine dependent on power law home runs. The tales of Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg risking everything they had and emerging with the largest personal fortunes on planet Earth reinforce the mythos that drives the entire risk taking sector, while survivorship bias conveniently forgets the millions of founders who go to zero. Salvation comes only to the select few who clear an ever steepening power law threshold."

Thesis: Democratization of venture capital and new low cost blockspace means disrupting this model. VC has breed an entire generation of order 1000 to 10000 founders produced in a year trying to hit for $10B exits. A new paradigm can form where we have 1B VCs throwing cash at smart people instead of parleys, and we have 1M to 10M founders focusing on $100M businesses. As long as the vig (capex/opex) dramatically lowers the stakes reduce.

Keep in mind the VC playbook is only 30 years old and for much of it, we didn't have low cost compute. Silicon Valley's model is not in the periodic table and nothing says that is the way scalable global businesses must form.

Defi. Ethereum. Physics.

Data at @quotient.

we'd still end up in the same place though. assume 10m founders focused on 100m+ businesses is the benchmark for success, there'll be a lot more than 10m people participating in the lottery trying to win. especially in an environment with low costs/barriers of entry.

writing at: https://paragraph.xyz/@thearcadia || curating vibes over at /football || bringing football onchain at /thefalsenine

Ah so I guess my assumptions are:

1. There will always be slots. Human nature creates groups always, and humans will naturally organize into hierarchies. There's a really good book that's admittedly unscientific on it (Why Information Grows, Hidalgo) that I take seriously on this topic. A lot of it is due to specialization, and how we actually can't have a society with no slots since some people by hook or crook, have better information than others on certain areas in our society, and we can't have drop in replacements for those slots.

2. We should strive to increase the slots. Society used to be a few slots per tribe, but we are much better off with many more slots. If we're talking about the level of entrepreneurs, I think its a net benefit to expand that, as it also means new slots below them open up.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good!

the main point of the essay is that whatever you benchmark entrepreneurial success as, we're likely to always have a surplus of people trying to fill the available slots. 

so, even if you distribute the wealth wider, you'd still end up with a lot more people chasing the (admittedly wider) available slots.

Not sure what you mean. Its a different world if the wealth creation is distributed wider rather than being concentrated. Depth vs. Breadth.