> With the absorption of entire markets the sober European view should be that the US approach was correct. Throw things at the wall until you have a wall full of things that stick. It looked pretty stupid until it didn't.
This approach only works if you have an insane amount of capital to waste ...
You don't know if it works, that's the whole point. European investors are like: How do I know 100% for sure this company will be a success? Why do I need this product? I have a car with chauffeur, why do I need a taxi app? I have a cook and a butler, why do I need a food delivery app? Pitching the LLM would be outright offending.
>
You don't know if it works, that's the whole point.
I am aware of that, and this is actually my point:
Since you don't know what will work, you can easily have a long phase of "duds" in your investments until you get one big hit. If you don't have a huge mount of additional capital lying around, as an investor you will go bust during such a long "starvation period".
That is why I wrote that this kind of investment approach only works if you have an insane amount of capital to waste.
I think one can be more selective. Skip the unlikely long shots. Being first has its advantage and disadvantages, doing something reasonably early is good enough.
With an insane amount of capital you do get a more reliable % of success but with a single lottery ticket you still have odds to win.
If you are not in the game at all you certainly wont.
This approach only works if you have an insane amount of capital to waste ...