I had a friend who worked there and we discussed potential solutions to this after the 2019 spike (I worked at a BNPL fintech and now at an insuretech). It was really a lot for a startup to do and no third parties would take on a program at that scale.
Technically this company was trying to fulfill the market need driven by the deregulation, and trying to provide lower cost solutions to the consumer, but they needed to build something to help with these spikes. They could have eventually I think, but just a tough business frankly!
> It was really a lot for a startup to do and no third parties would take on a program at that scale.
No one wanted to take the other side of a tail risk trade?
I wonder if they could have made tail risk bets that prices could spike during seasonal occurrences that had small fixed upfront costs, but high enough payout to absorb losses while still keeping prices lower than competitors. If they could have, none of us would be talking about this now (except maybe "How one energy company won big betting that energy prices would eventually spike").
I’m all for this (meaning bringing diverse co-investors into rounds). I’d add that as entrepreneurs we should add LP riders when doing rounds (where’s your money from?!).
Can’t say I know all these funds super well - they’re not big names outside of a couple - but helping diverse co-investors build track records is a good idea on a bunch of levels. It’s all friends and family anyway.
I will say that Greycroft is one of the few funds who I respect deeply in how they operate and don’t treat “diversity” as an add-on. They’re just a really smart group of people, that I’ve enjoyed every interaction with, that actually have a diverse set of experiences and interesting points of view And investment theses that scale across diverse sociopoltifla outcomes. Novel I know!
I see a few misguided comments here not worth responding too about “merit” and what not. I’ll deal with your anguish if you make a point of it, but please bring some original thought, non-anecdotal or not-bad research cause I feel like I’m reading a bad /r/* thread in the below.
We have recent proof that educational institutions actually discriminate against white and asian pupils.
Your wording suggests animosity, so why would you believe you are less biased than anyone else?
Perhaps you are biased because you spend time on reddit, I wouldn't hold it against anyone, but original thought doesn't make an appearance in this discussion.
I believe that discrimination narrative is largely based on test scores. Which are, and it took me decades to come around to this, fairly biased. Outcomes have been shown to be pretty equal regardless of relative experience (and comparable ability) pre-college.
And I’m less biased cause I’ve seen more and made pretty much every mistake a high test-score, arrogant white or Asian guy can make :).
My neighborhood (14 homes) is working towards building a fiber island with wireless backhaul elsewhere. We're the houses right around the Rhus Ridge trailhead. But there are even-closer-to-urbanization neighborhoods without access, e.g., Wildcrest and Wildflower.
Pro-tip: put something actually interesting about you personally on the resume. Literally the first thing I look at after scanning background and making an immediate decision. I think it’s literally the only thing to jar people out of their auto decision (especially with zoom interviews).
The one exception is take homes exercises - sometimes I’m surprised but still that doesn’t usually flip the bit
Definitely don’t joke about it - but people should be aware that poor performance or behavior won’t be tolerated. The best employees generally appreciate that meritocracy is taken seriously.
Along those lines, advice to new managers: you should let people go if there isn’t a good mutual fit.
This is what happens when a non-profit gets taken over by greed I guess..