mattknox/in_re:a16z_and_trust

## in_re:a16z_and_trust
When judging statements by an unknown actor, I tend to evaluate such statements by the cost of making them.  So if I work for a company that says they value me, that's nice, but it's cheap (~free!) to say and therefore unpersuasive.  If they just bought my company/gave me a bunch of equity/took other expensive action, I would attach more weight to what they said.

So, you don't trust a16z's statements about whether we're in a bubble, presumably because he has an interest in the outcome.  I do trust that he thinks we are not in a bubble, because he continues to invest his and others' money at current valuations.  It's moderately expensive in reputation and monetary risk for him to do so, so I trust somewhat that he believes as he says he does.

The other metric I use for evaluating trustworthiness is how much value someone would derive by me believing what they say.  By this metric, a16z has something to gain by people believing we are not in a bubble-they have holdings in a bunch of public companies, including the one I work for.  On the other hand, there is a similar gain to be had by people thinking there IS a bubble-if they can get valuations down, they can buy companies cheaper.

I'm a bit biased in this because I also don't think we are in a bubble, at least not one like we saw in 2000.  I'm happy to talk about why, but it's beyond the scope of the tweet you wanted an expansion on.  So I guess that's all I have to say about that.  :)
	When judging statements by an unknown actor, I tend to evaluate such statements by the cost of making them. So if I work for a company that says they value me, that's nice, but it's cheap (~free!) to say and therefore unpersuasive. If they just bought my company/gave me a bunch of equity/took other expensive action, I would attach more weight to what they said.

	So, you don't trust a16z's statements about whether we're in a bubble, presumably because he has an interest in the outcome. I do trust that he thinks we are not in a bubble, because he continues to invest his and others' money at current valuations. It's moderately expensive in reputation and monetary risk for him to do so, so I trust somewhat that he believes as he says he does.

	The other metric I use for evaluating trustworthiness is how much value someone would derive by me believing what they say. By this metric, a16z has something to gain by people believing we are not in a bubble-they have holdings in a bunch of public companies, including the one I work for. On the other hand, there is a similar gain to be had by people thinking there IS a bubble-if they can get valuations down, they can buy companies cheaper.

	I'm a bit biased in this because I also don't think we are in a bubble, at least not one like we saw in 2000. I'm happy to talk about why, but it's beyond the scope of the tweet you wanted an expansion on. So I guess that's all I have to say about that. :)