peloton

Does this link work for you https://archive.ph/Yg64e

This is right, but I'd also add that the benefit to cap and trade is that it's politically easier to do (since it's not called a "tax").

There wasn't market manipulation here on GDAX's part. The people they are compensating are those who got wiped because they were trading on margin (if anyone is not familiar, this adds much more risk). These people already had their portfolios auto-liquidated via the margin call so stopping trading afterwards had no impact. Same with stop loss orders, although there's a different mechanism at play there.

From GDAX's point of view the tradeoff boiled down to whether to invest in PR / brand today or risk a moral hazard problem in the future (users expecting bailouts so they take more risk).

Have seen this, haven't tried (and I have no affiliation): https://www.trycleo.com/

Recent data suggests trade restrictive measures are at an elevated level.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-10/trump-or-n...

There isn't a lot of substance but the Enron comparison is awfully loaded. The article specifically calls out the use of off balance sheet entities to hide costs-- for people who follow this stuff, that immediately triggers memories of Enron's use of special purpose entities and Lehman's Repo 105 off balance sheet shenanigans.

Agree, Inoreader has a lot of power user features.

The iOS apps are good too.

Not mentioned in article but bodes well for drones, aerial mapping, etc.

FASB ASC Topic 820, Unobservable inputs for Level 3 assets/liabilities.

Yea, I think the industry seems to have been caught off guard by how aggressive the mutual funds have been with their mark-to-market valuations. This public data will likely have to be factored into the valuation methodologies of the private investors in these deals. Absent of this, Unicorn valuations were probably going to take a much longer time to deflate.

This might be a little off topic but I heard on the other hand that Stanford's business school was an underdog pre 1990s. Do you know if there's any truth to that?

I've heard discussion amongst the adtech crowd that it's "viewability tracking" products that are creating a lot of the slowness we feel today on the web.

There's typically an application process for the low income units. The rents are much cheaper than for the regular units. http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2012/06/05/city_now_accepting_...

I've seen buildings with separate doors and some without that have low income units. Even in the same building, the low income units are not as nice (e.g. no in-unit washer dryer, no stainless steel appliances, cheaper fixtures). Also, some buildings only provide keys to the gym and other common areas for non-low income. But I think they got in trouble for that and may have stopped.

Looked up the latest Janrain report. Looks like the trend reversed and Facebook increased their share:

"Facebook is regaining ground lost in Q4 2014, with noteworthy growth in the Consumer Brand (9% increase) and B2B (11% increase) verticals

Google+ saw an overall decrease of 6% from last quarter, widening the gap with Facebook to 8% with a total share of 37%"

http://janrain.com/blog/social-login-trends-across-the-web-q...

For those who care, the Gmail app still has the option to not load images. It's why I still use it over Dropbox Mailbox, Google Inbox, and Microsoft Outlook (Acompli).

I, too, am not a fan of blog posts without dates. The archive view suggests it's new: http://danluu.com/blog/archives/

From the LP pov, it boils down to capital concentration. Most LPs I've spoken with are not that different from Michael Kim (LP from the article) in that they are for capital concentration. It is the most controversial part of the offering.

Reference: http://25iq.com/2013/01/16/charlie-munger-on-investment-conc...

http://robgo.org/2013/10/21/decision-making-speed-of-big-fun...

https://twitter.com/trengriffin/status/264789822982471680

https://twitter.com/sama/status/458094667972624384

That said, in the end, real performance trumps everything.

Yeah, not only that but it's not easy for an org as big as Google to experiment with stuff like this when they have a huge advertising operation that's trying to sell more ads, not less. Moves like this have to be top down driven by a strong leader.

Ray Oldenburg wrote the influential book about this topic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_place

I read it years ago so I'm less familiar with how it's viewed today (with the rise of virtual third places).

Remember the Bloomberg terminal snooping controversy from last year? Reporters at Bloomberg News had access to terminal meta data that allowed them to view user contact information and monitor login activity.

When the activity was disclosed, Goldman and a few other banks were trying to figure out ways to replicate some of the features (including chat). I'm not sure where those projects stand today but my point is that their biggest clients desired to sponsor the unbundling of some of the terminal's core features.

Their model definitely doesn't fit the industry way of doing things but I give credit to the Lightbank guys for putting something different out there and standing behind it. They have a track record and are investing a lot of their own money. Also, I think they saw how effective their approach with Groupon was and this program may be something where they are trying to replicate what they did there.

That said, this program isn't a fit for me so I don't plan to apply.

Can't confirm for ERA but this is standard practice for accelerator programs. 500, etc. do this.

It's a good question but I think Rob was trying to leave that out of scope and focus on a process that probably fits what other seed/early stage funds have either proactively created or reactively evolved. What's implied is that everything is moot unless they meet founders that they deem investable. Only then, does he spend more time researching the other stuff.

Founders in this position usually sell because they can't raise any more money and the next best option is to shut down the company because they're out of money.

With an acqui-hire, at least you find a soft landing spot for some of your employees and your investors can tell a nicer story about one of their investments getting acquired (instead of getting shut down).

They would if they found tech that gave them a clear edge and it made sense to acquire from an ROI perspective.

That's usually a placeholder number. They're going to raise what they can and it will probably end up much higher than $1b in stock.

I've been using Trello for a few weeks now. Is there a resource out there that can show me how power users are using it so I can really max it out?

Workflowy is great. All the updates get emailed to me and this is sufficient backup for how I use the app.

Not comfortable naming names but investor was late and founder said it felt like investor already knew it was a pass since he started meeting with something like "just for full disclosure we typically don't invest..." (I made this quote up-- I'm just trying to give you an example)

My opinion is that we need more big seed funds (lets say ~$50M fund size). We can't rely on Series A funds to do smaller deals. Revolution comes from below. Besides, those Series A funds have probably sold an investment strategy to their LP investors and they can't change (or don't want to look silly changing) strategies in the middle of their fund.