[sbierwagen]

Also a pg essay from 2010: https://www.paulgraham.com/yahoo.html

>By 1998, Yahoo was the beneficiary of a de facto Ponzi scheme. Investors were excited about the Internet. One reason they were excited was Yahoo's revenue growth. So they invested in new Internet startups. The startups then used the money to buy ads on Yahoo to get traffic. Which caused yet more revenue growth for Yahoo, and further convinced investors the Internet was worth investing in. When I realized this one day, sitting in my cubicle, I jumped up like Archimedes in his bathtub, except instead of "Eureka!" I was shouting "Sell!"

[themafia]

That's not how Ponzi schemes work. Yahoo had a defacto _monopoly_ and the market had bad discovery leading to bad price information. There was no point at which the internet was /not/ worth investing in and everyone who had experience with it knew that.

The real problem seemed to be that you can only put so much money into pets.com before it becomes stupid. You had more short term investment capital than could be _effectively_ spent at the time. The long term players, as usual, avoided the Archimedian idealism, and were heavily rewarded anyways.

pg has startup brains.

[ifwinterco]

Same issue with LLMs - there probably is real value there, but investors have rammed 10 years' worth of investment into the market in 10 months.

That means: 1) Late investors end up taking a bath because it will actually take 10x longer to get a return than they thought. 2) Investment becomes inefficient - there are lot of GPUs being bought in 2025 that should have been bought in 2030. By the time 2030 comes along, those 2025 GPUs will be outdated, so the value they will provide will be less than if they had been purchased at the correct time

[noitpmeder]

pg has completely clairvoyant vision, if only about historical events

[roncesvalles]

>There was no point at which the internet was /not/ worth investing in and everyone who had experience with it knew that.

I don't get this. Of course there was. Specifically, March 10, 2000.

To declare that something is not worth investing in doesn't imply that it's useless. (and actually, swing investors will argue something can be worth investing in even though it is in fact useless, e.g. web3 and most crypto).

[hn_throwaway_99]

Why is it so popular to "akshually, Ponzi schemes are different!" these days?

Words have meaning in context, and calling something a "Ponzi scheme" these days means any pyramid-like system that only works as long as new investors come to the table, because that new investor money is the sole source of gains for earlier investors. But once you run out of new investors, which is inevitable, the whole thing collapses. What pg described was exactly a Ponzi scheme in that sense, even if it wasn't a deliberate scam. And that's very different from other types of business ventures that eventually fail because of the more "normal" reason that they just don't gain traction.

[johnnienaked]

This time it's different?