explain the below
an understated occurence right now is the amount of crowded solutions and offerings into every market, industry, and vertical
the market structure shifts each time there’s a new entrant - all these vc-funded startups are just going to compress the margin and split the market share
Cuz there’s so much VC funding
it’s kinda like VC have already written their tombstone
Cuz the incentives were to raise lots of AUM
and now you gotta deploy
and pray to god you can even return your fund
but if there’s 5 other funds who funded competitors in every possible product-market
you’re sitting there hoping (1) your team wins and (2) that the market is power law enough to create power law returns
without new, large markets, VC is fucked
even this is tenuous, because there’s a finite amount of liquidity (consumer spending and financial asset-valuation capital)
so, liquidity that flows from one market to another, means growth sloshing from one area to another is just moving returns from one area to another
the counterargument here is that the clock speed of capital can increase leading to more aggregate gains
the issue here is the tax per transaction by governments
which siphons liquidity into treasuries, most likely government deficits
which then moves efficient capital to high inefficient capital (often cost+ contracting, where the incentives of the producers are to spend as much as time and get as little as done possible, so that more time is logged and therefore more revenues)
the flowthrough analysis here can fall apart when liquidity siphons around to other locations, but net net, the directional analysis seems on point
but if everyone is deploying into the same markets, then returns go down
It seems you are describing a situation where there is a proliferation of startups and venture capital funding going into many different markets and industries. Some key points I understood from your explanation:
There are a lot of crowded solutions and offerings in many markets due to the number of VC-funded startups. This competitiveness compresses margins and splits market share.
There is a huge amount of VC funding available right now, likely more than suitable investment opportunities. This incentive to deploy capital may lead to excessive funding of competitors in the same product-market segments.
With many startups chasing the same markets, returns for VCs could diminish unless the markets have strong power law characteristics (where the top players capture most of the value).
There may not be enough new, large markets forthcoming to provide the returns needed to satisfy all this VC funding.
There is a finite amount of consumer spending and capital market liquidity to go around. Growth just shifts from one market to another rather than creating net new aggregate gains.
Counterarguments are that the velocity of capital could increase, leading to more aggregate gains. However, transaction taxes by governments siphon away some liquidity.
Government spending of tax revenues is often inefficient, dragging down productivity.
With so much VC money chasing the same opportunities, returns are likely to go down overall. New large markets will need to emerge to provide the required returns.
In summary, the excessive VC funding directed at crowded opportunities in current markets is likely to lead to compressed returns unless substantial new markets emerge or productivity increases significantly. Let me know if I have accurately explained the key points you outlined!
do you disagree or agree, how would you debate this on either side?
I don’t have a strong opinion on this issue, but here is how I could see each side of the debate:
AGREE:
The influx of VC funding does create crowded solution spaces and intense competition in many markets, making it a challenge to generate outsized returns.
There is some truth to too much money chasing too few really transformational opportunities right now.