Quantopian Fills Up the Tank
Quantopian announced this morning that they raised $15MM in equity financing, led by Bessemer with participation from Spark, Khosla, and Wicklow Capital. Rob Stavis from Bessemer has joined the board, whose prior experience in the world of finance will be very valuable to the company going forward.
Simultaneous to the funding announcement, the company is starting to talk about what they want to be when they grow up: a networked hedge fund. The company will raise capital to back the best performing algorithms inside the platform that choose to opt-in to the fund. It’s a great model that balances all parties interests well: quants get access to Wall St-grade trading workflow tools and easier access to capital, Quantopian makes money as the underlying quants become more successful with their algorithms, and investors in the fund get a wide diversity of ideas for systematic trading from Quantopian’s global audience. It’s an exciting idea; to be clear about expectations on timing, the fund is still very early in execution — essentially idea stage. The announcement of the fund model at this time send a clear signal to Quantopian’s community of quants about the long term plans of the business.
Quantopian is blossoming. The seamless develop-test-trade workflow is strong single-player value to a quant, and the community of quants helping each other and sharing code is great multiplayer value. With a strong balance sheet, Quantopian can now invest in building their community of emerging systematic trading managers into a larger fund.
I’m incredibly impressed with the progress Fawce, Jean, and the rest of the Quantopian team have made, and I count myself very lucky to have the opportunity to work with them.
Michael Carney from PandoDaily has good extended coverage on the financing.
Secondary Technologies and “Why Now?”
After spending a good amount of time in VC, its only natural that you’ll hear the same idea pitched again years later. Or, in its extreme, you’ll hear an idea pitched in a market that is littered with the cracked hulls of failed startups in the past. When this happens, the skeptical mind asks “Why Now?” Why will this work today when so many others have failed in the past?
Sometimes the answer is as simple as “We are better.” Team matters… at the earliest stage of investing I’d argue it matters above all else. And so as an investor you have to decide whether you think this is the team to crack the code in a historically difficult market.
But sometimes, you can come up with an answer to “Why Now?” that’s far more rational and intellectually satisfying. In one of my favorite startup talks ever, Jawad Karim (the third co-founder of YouTube that people usually forget to include in crediting YouTube’s genesis story) explains the “Why Now?” of YouTube quite rationally. He uses an argument around secondary technology and how they were the necessary foundation for YouTube’s success where previously so many other companies had failed. The talk is long, so I’ve cued it up in YouTube directly to the part where he explains “Why Now?” and secondary technologies. If you have more time, I *highly* recommend you watch the whole video because it contains countless gems of internet lore and nostalgia, along with a good analysis of the commonalities of hypergrowth companies.
Also, Liz Gannes did a tl;dr of the video back in 2006, which is a nice summary… though her link to the video in her article is broken so use mine instead.
This talk is 8 years old so I consider this my #tbt for the day even if I wasn’t there.
A quote from an NYT article on Apple Pay.
"Respect and Honor…" I will remember that phrase for a long time. It’s a death knell.
Q: So, unrelated question, but I’m just curious—- What was your reaction to THE SOCIAL NETWORK movie?
A:The zero-sum world it portrayed has nothing in common with the Silicon Valley I know, but I suspect it’s a pretty accurate portrayal of the dysfunctional relationships that dominate Hollywood.
from Peter Thiel’s AMA on Reddit.
That’s the single most unintuitive thing about startups: they are almost never zero-sum. Which means you have to stop thinking about competition and instead focus internally on your own strengths and weaknesses. It’s unlike nearly all games, simulations, and learning lessons we all play growing up.
"When Are We Gonna Have To Use This?"
Upworthy has a beautiful video featuring an algebra class working together to on a sticky math question. It’s inspiring to watch; it features the best aspects of problem solving and challenging yourself. My favorite part is the teacher’s refutation to the question: “When am I ever going to use this?”
Q: Why do you do this exercise with your students?
"Every year I get the question in class, ‘When are we gonna have to use this?’ And my answer to that question is, ‘You’re not.’ That’s not the point. By doing math, we are carving neural pathways that otherwise wouldn’t have been there. Grappling with problems like this makes us better problem solvers, and by extension, better human beings.”
This response reminded me one of my favorite blogs post of the past few years, written by my friend Ben Stein. He wrote a refutation to Jeff Atwood plea to stop encouraging everyone to become programmers.
Jeff’s point was: very few people who learn to program become great programmers, and why does the world need more mediocre programmers? Just like not everyone needs to learn to be a plumber, not everyone needs to learn to program.
Ben’s response was terrific. It’s all great, but the money paragraph is:
Do I want my son to become a computer programmer? I don’t care. Up to him. Do I want him to understand how to think critically and logically and in a structured & methodical way when approaching problems? Absolutely. And computer programming teaches these skills better than anything else I’ve ever done.
Similarly, I recently finished a Coursera course on Cryptography. Outside of this class, I will never again implement a crypto cipher, or even use crypto library code in an app I write. No one will ever rely on me to handle their encryption/decryption matters. Like plumbing, it’s nearly always cleanly abstracted away from me. But it was so worth my time because of the way in which it challenged me an expanded my thinking. Like after reading a good book, it changed the way I think about a set of problems, and by extension, makes me a better human being.
Value of the Stellar Currency
Stellar is fascinating. I’ve spent much of my day today learning everything I can about it.
I’m curious about what the total value of the currency is worth at this beta beginning. There’s a couple answers:
1) Stripe made a $3,000,000 loan to Stellar to fund initial operations. Stellar repaid this loan using 2% of all stellars*. This means $3MM / 2% = $150MM stellar market cap.
2) On reddit people are offering the following conversion rates:
- 4000 stellars for 1 hr of full-stack dev consulting work. 1 hr of a dev’s time =~ $100. So, that’s a 40 stellar : $1 ratio. There are 100 Billion stellars in existence. Which implies a stellar market cap of: $2.5B.
- Paying $2 for 5000 stellar. So that’s a 2500 stellar : $1 ratio. Which implies a stellar market cap of: $40MM.
Both of those are only offered rates. Nothing has actually transacted at those prices as far as I can tell. So, they represent the bid side of the bid/ask spread.
3) Stellar.org is giving away 19% of all stellars to owners of Bitcoin. This ratio implies a value of 1450 stellar : 1 BTC, which is a 2.4 stellar : $1 ratio (using today’s BTC price of $601.97). Which implies a stellar market cap of: $41.5B
This last # is pretty fishy because you don’t have to actually exchange your BTC to get your 1450 stellars… it’s just a gift for being an early supporter of bitcoin. So, it’s not really a conversion rate.
In conclusion, what is a stellar actually worth? Whatever someone will pay for it. Which of these valuations holds the most veracity, I guess the $150MM number… although $3MM is really just option value to Stripe, so it’s not perfect. The best valuation metric would be to know the salaries being paid in Stellar, compared to market rate alternatives.
* lowercase = currency unit. Uppercase = the non-profit company.