Tag: venture capital

• Blockchain gas fees are dropping — that’s good

  I watched the BlackBerry movie the other week and right away I thought, “whoa, is Jim Balsillie really like that?” Supposedly, kind of. Either way, it was a good movie that naturally ended with the fall of BlackBerry, with Balsillie not getting an NHL team, and with Mike Lazaridis dismissing the first iPhone as a toy. “Who wants to use a phone without a keyboard?”

  We all know these stories. In fact, they feel trite in retrospect. There’s Blockbuster, Kodak, and countless others. But these moments are clearly a lot harder to identify in the moment. And today, at least for me, it feels like this moment for crypto and blockchains.

  It’s easy to dismiss this space. Among other things, a blockchain is an objectively worse database. They’re slower than today’s alternatives. They require more computing power. There’s no customer service when something goes wrong. And, it generally costs a lot more to save new information to a blockchain (this cost is called a gas fee).

  At the peak of the market in 2021, the average quarterly gas fee (cost per transaction) on the Ethereum network reached about US$37. Given this, nobody wanted to use this database to buy a $2 coffee. (However, many people were, at least at the time, willing to use it to buy expensive NFTs.)

  But as Tomasz Tunguz outlines in this great post called “Gas Gas Revolution”, the cost of saving data to a blockchain has dropped dramatically over the last few years. And all signs indicate that this trend is only going to continue. So what happens when it becomes cheap/basically free to save to these worse databases?

  Well, if you believe that “decentralized” and open databases are going to unlock powerful new innovations, the correct answer is probably: a lot. And then all of a sudden, they’ll be better databases.

  2023.10.27

• Toward a culture of innovation and entrepreneurship

  One way you could oversimplify the Canadian economy is to say that it revolves around three things: natural resources, real estate, and high immigration. (You can tell me I’m wrong in the comments below.) More recently, we’ve also been touting the growing number of tech workers in our cities. But in some ways this is a bit of a vanity metric. 

  I think of it in terms of two different categories of workers. There are tech workers that are the result of foreign companies opening satellite offices to take advantage of the weak Canadian dollar and our more enlightened immigration policies. And there are tech workers that are the result of Canadian-based companies innovating, growing, and needing more talent. Think Shopify.

  The former situation is not at all bad, but a lot of the value is going to accrue outside of the country. Whereas in the latter situation, we get to be the principal recipients and we get all of the positive externalities associated with innovation and entrepreneurship. One of these is a powerful compounding effect. Successful startups tend to beget even more new companies. 

  So even though I work in and benefit from one of the three things that I mentioned at the beginning of this post, I believe that we need to be much better at encouraging a culture of innovation and entrepreneurship in Canada. We’ve become too complacent.

  This is a critically important topic that we don’t seem to be talking about nearly enough. So I plan to do more of that here on the blog.

  2023.08.17

• Micromobility ridership in the US from 2010 to 2021

  

  The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) has just published this report on shared micro mobility in the US from 2010 to 2021. And it’s a good look at how this space has evolved over the years. According to the report, the first modern North American bike share system was installed in Montréal in 2009 and the first in the US was in 2010. Though a quick Google search has Washington DC claiming this title in 2008.

  Whatever the case may be, bike share ridership started somewhere around 321k per year in the US and trip volume is now close to 50 million per year. Electric scooters also joined the mix in 2018, and 2019 was a banner year for this mode of transportation. The report suggests this was due to cheap VC money subsidizing these rides. Electric scooters have seen their average trip cost 2x between 2018 ($3.50) and 2021 ($7), despite the average trip distance remaining more or less flat (1.3 to 1.2 miles).

  Naturally, the pandemic was bad for shared mobility. But it is interesting to see how much this space has rebounded and how resilient it seems to be. Prior to the pandemic, bike share usage had clear morning and evening peaks, coinciding with people commuting to work. Since then, we have seen a shift to both a wider range of trips (i.e. to do things like get groceries) and more trips throughout the day.

  To download a full copy of the report, click here.

  2022.12.03

• State of Crypto

  Everybody wishes that they bought companies like Amazon way back when they first went public, and then held them until today. If you did that, you would of course now be rich. But what would you have had to deal with along the way?

  Well, for one, you would have had to stomach an 80% decline in its share price when the dot-com bubble burst. And so while hindsight is always 20-20, do you really think that, faced with this cliff, you would have held on, not freaked out, and not sold? Yeah, who knows.

  Moving to today and the crypto space, the price of Ether is down 51% over the last 6 months. That’s not quite 80%, but 51% is still a big number, especially if you dumped all of your savings into it and/or borrowed money to do so.

  But does this decline really mean that crypto is rat poison?

  Last year when the market cap of crypto was rising, I believed that crypto had the potential to become the next big thing for the internet. And I still believe that today, which is why I continue to dollar cost average and why I continue to collect NFTs that I like.

  I may be wrong with the conviction I have (and this post will serve as permanent evidence of it), but it’s what I believe. And my conviction doesn’t depend on today’s price. It depends on what I think it could happen with crypto in the next 10 years.

  So with that, here is an interesting “State of Crypto” report that venture firm a16z just published. I think the key message here is that this is a longtime coming. And while it is still early days, momentum continues to grow. But of course, you should decide for yourself what you believe.

  2022.05.17

• Is crypto just snake oil?

  As I understand it, databases are pretty important to technology companies. Here is an excerpt from a recent post by Albert Wenger talking about why he and his company (Union Square Ventures) believe that web3/crypto is going to unlock new value for our society:

  As a first approximation all the big powerful internet companies are really database providers. Facebook is a database of people’s profiles, their friend graphs and their status updates. Paypal is a database of people’s account balances. Amazon is a database of SKUs, payment credentials and purchase histories. Google is a database of web pages and query histories. Of course all of these companies have built a great deal more over time, but operating a database has stayed at the core of why they are powerful. Only they get to decide who has permission to read and write to this database and which parts of it they get access to.

  So how will web3 be any better? Well blockchains, at least right now, are poorer performing databases in almost all dimensions, according to Albert. And this is one of the reasons why they’re being so quickly dismissed by most people. But they do have one key advantage: permissionless data. No single entity controls a blockchain database. More from Albert:

  It is difficult to overstate how big an innovation this is. We went from not being able to do something at all to having a first working version. Again to be clear, I am not saying this will solve all problems. Of course it won’t. And it will even create new problems of its own. Still, permissionless data was a crucial missing piece – its absence resulted in a vast power concentration. As such Web3 can, if properly developed and with the right kind of regulation, provide a meaningful shift in power back to individuals and communities.

  All of this said, I do agree with Fred Wilson and others that the web3/crypto enthusiasts on Twitter these days are getting to be a bit much. For obvious reasons, everyone is trying to pump the crypto stuff that they own. And it can certainly feel like shills trying to sell snake oil. But as Fred pointed out today, this isn’t the first time that we’ve been here:

  It reminds me of the early days of web2 in 2001/2002/2003, when we started USV. That was also a time of great cynicism. We almost did not get our first fund raised. Nobody was buying the story we were telling. But of course, that story turned out to be true. And I am confident this one will too.

  If/when this story does turn out to be true — and I believe it’s a when — I think we will see it permeate through all sectors of the economy, including how we plan, build, and operate our cities. Of course, this will probably take decades and much of what will happen is unknowable right now. But it’s pretty hard to ignore that this was a pivotal year for the crypto space.

  2021.12.29

• The World After Capital

  

  Years ago I wrote about a book that venture capitalist Albert Wenger was writing — in public I would add — called The World After Capital. The public bit is interesting. As he was writing the book over the last ten years or so, he did it in public and published drafts along the way. This allowed him to get feedback, learn things, and revise accordingly. He calls this a “knowledge loop” and it ties in nicely with some of the topics that he covers in the book.

  The first focus of the book is on explaining that capital (which was a constraint of industrialization) is no longer scarce. This isn’t necessarily true everywhere, but he argues that it is true in the developed world. What is instead scarce today is attention. That is our defining constraint as we continue to move into the Knowledge Age. The second focus of his book is on how he thinks we should best respond to these changes, as well as to the limitations of capitalism.

  I haven’t read the book yet (only scanned it), but it’s now in my queue. Normally my queue consists of a stack of partially read books next to my bed. But this one is digital only for the time being. If you’d like to read a digital copy (there’s a downloadable PDF), go here. Apparently there will also be a hard copy available sometime later this year or early next year.

  2021.09.02

• The 25 top-funded proptech startups in Canada

  Proptech Collective has just published their inaugural 2021 Proptech in Canada report. Here are a couple of screen grabs that you all might find interesting:

  

  

  

  What these images should tell you is that the Canadian proptech landscape is fairly Toronto-centric, but that it’s also very much in its nascent stages. We’re just getting started here.

  I would encourage you to download a full copy of the report. It’s very well done.

  2021.02.08

• Rich people and nerds (in Miami)

  

  Back in 2006, Paul Graham penned an essay about how to be Silicon Valley. Since then, it seems like every city on the planet has tried to replicate the successes of the Valley. At the time, his argument was pretty simple. Geography used to be destiny when it came to cities. New York City, for example, is arguably what it is today because of its geography and its deep harbor, which created a natural competitive advantage compared to other east coast cities such as Boston and Philadelphia. But this, he argues, has become far less relevant. Now, you can create a great city pretty much anywhere. So what are the necessary ingredients?

  Paul argued that you only really need two kinds of people to create a technology hub: rich people and nerds. You need people creating new things and you need rich people to fund those new ideas. That’s it. So in theory, if you could just dump a bunch of these kinds of people in one place — Nunavut? — you’d perhaps get unicorns coming out the other end. He goes on to say that Miami is a perfect example of a city that has lots of the former, but very few of the latter. It has lots of rich people, but, in his words, it’s not the kind of place that nerds like. So it is/was not a good startup city. (I’m a nerd and I like Miami.)

  But the year is now 2021 and a global pandemic seems to be helping to change this dynamic. Every tech entrepreneur and/or investor now seems to want to move to either Austin or Miami. To that end, SoftBank recently announced that it has earmarked $100 million for startups that are based in Miami or that plan to be based in Miami in the near future. It’s perhaps a good testament to the momentum that seems to be developing around the startup scene in the city, which is something that their mayor has been incredibly vocal about.

  But here’s something to consider. Was Paul right about the two requisite ingredients for a successful startup hub? And if so, does Miami now have enough nerds? Maybe this recent influx of people was just what it was missing.

  Photo by Cody Board on Unsplash

  2021.01.28

• The origins of carried interest

  In the world of finance, carried interest is the share of the profits in an investment that a manager (of said investment) earns in excess of what they may have contributed to the partnership. For example, let’s say that a manager is putting in 10% of the cash that is required for a particular project. If the project goes really well, the manager, through carried interest, could earn more than their 10% share of the profits. Put another way, it is a performance fee that is intended to incentivize and reward the manager.

  Today I learned (credit to Lucas Manuel) that the origins of carried interest go all the way back to the Middle Ages. The concept and term supposedly came about because the captains of European ships would take a share of the profit from the “carried goods” that they were transporting. This was to compensate them for the work and for the risk of sailing all over the place. Keep in mind that, just like today, any number of things could have gone wrong. Maybe you don’t make it or maybe pirates steal all of your goodies.

  There is also a compelling argument (made here) that this simple concept has been instrumental, since the Medieval Period, in improving the fortunes of many, but most notably those that weren’t born into riches and that were starting out with limited means. Carried interest allowed Medieval merchants to (1) initiate sailing ventures for which they didn’t have the requisite money and (2) earn a disproportionate amount of the profits so that they could more quickly improve their socioeconomic position.

  Do good work, take on some risk, and then hopefully make a few bucks. That’s still how things work today. Supposedly David Rubenstein, cofounder of The Carlyle Group, also talks about the origins of carried interest in his recent appearance on the Tim Ferriss Show. I say supposedly because podcasts generally take too long for me and I haven’t listened to it.

  2021.01.27

• The case for speculative asset bubbles (and happy new year)

  This is an interesting perspective. It is from Fred Wilson’s annual what-happened-this-past-year post:

  But here is the thing about speculative frenzies – they are generally directionally correct but off in their order of magnitude. And they finance the trend that they are directionally correct about. It may be the case that Tesla’s market capitalization is too high, but that allows Tesla to raise $10bn without diluting more than a few percentage points. And that $10bn will go towards accelerating the conversion of the auto industry from carbon-based fuel to renewable energy. And that is a good thing for society.

  When I first read this my mind immediately went to tulip mania. Was that directionally correct? Did tulip bulbs ultimately rebound and maintain their value over the long-run? I actually don’t know.

  But if you think about the dot-com bubble, that was directionally correct. Sure, infamous “companies” like Pets.com never ended up going anywhere, but the idea of tech and the internet becoming dominant was absolutely right.

  Fast forward twenty years and you can be sure that many people are now buying their pet supplies online, along with pretty much everything else. Sometimes we simply overshoot and get the timing wrong.

  This is perhaps a good thought for all of us to consider as we welcome 2021 and say goodbye to what was one weird and terrible year.

  Being directionally correct means that it’s okay for there to be bumps, mistakes, and speculative frenzies along the way. They are expected. What matters is the path forward.

  Happy new year, everyone.

  2020.12.31