Betelgeux's comments

The critique of the financial system relies on a misunderstanding of the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) model.

You conflate 'r' (the discount rate) with 'Rf' (the risk-free interest rate). In reality, for high-risk assets like startups, 'r' is defined by the Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC) or CAPM: r = Rf + Beta(Rm - Rf).

Even in a ZIRP environment where Rf -> 0, the Beta (risk/volatility) for a startup is massive. A rational investor would still demand a high 'r', leading to a low valuation. The fact that VCs ignored this and funded "blatantly bad deals" cannot be explained by low interest rates alone. It is better explained by the information asymmetry a.k.a principal-agent problem.

We have a system where capital flows from passive LPs through multiple layers of rent-seeking intermediaries (VCs, LPs, Fund Managers) who are incentivized by management fees rather than carry. The market failure described isn't "financial nihilism" and "financial short-termism". It's a breakdown of feedback loops where intermediaries face no downside risk for misallocation. When there is no market coordination, no real competition, just unrestricted collusion, then things start to not make sense from the old school financial/business perspective. I do not think this is the failure of economic theory or the financial models itself, rather just that nobody knows or tells, that the prerequisite for these things is at least some degree of fair competition, market based economy, informed, rational actors and restricted collusion.

Suggesting that technical founders can fix this by simply "being decent" ignores the systemic reality. This economic structure rewards extraction over value creation, "decency" is an evolutionary disadvantage. The "real hackers" in this story are the financial and business intermediaries who successfully reverse-engineered the economy to extract rent without generating value, similarly to all those entrepreneurs, CEOs, corpo drones in the business sphere who do not provide any meaningful value to society (and shareholders as well.)

Or rather thinking one step forward the question arises, whether we use the right words for the right things? Does the capitalist West has any defining economics characteristics of a liberal free-market capitalism at all?

Private ownership of means of production: On an atomic, legal level of course. But if point at an NVIDIA based compute rack at a US based random datacenter, can someone tell me actually who owns it? I am interested in the actual natural person who has an ownership share of this capital asset, not the myriads of layers of corporate and financial networks of equity delegations through investment banks, but the actual owner?

Profit oriented: Of course, it is said so. But do really companies, entrepreneurs do things to maximize the profits of the actual owners, shareholders? Are the executives and boards really that keen on putting forward the interest - of the previously referenced unknown - actual owner of the capital assets?

Free market based: This has also multiple sub-characteristics, but most importantly something about competition, or rather the lack of collusion and that economic actors (including consumers, (natural person) investors) are all fully informed. How much is this true in the West?

I think we are very much lost in labels.