Loved this from [3]:

> On the contrary, we are seeing the emergence of a new velocity-focused strategy in the venture/growth3 asset class that will fundamentally change the way that venture capital is raised.

Or, and I'm just spitballing here, capital was cheap because interest rates have been at all time lows for years. You only find out which one it is when interest rates start to go up.

Weirdest quote the TC article was "In the meantime, Tiger Global, which prides itself on its due diligence"

They are notorious for outsourcing their due diligence and often not even paying attention to it. They pride themselves on moving fast, not diligence.

I liked the investment thesis of "get founders money and get out of their way" and hopefully other VCs learned something from it, but they certainly lacked a lot of control in how they operated.

> I liked the investment thesis of "get founders money and get out of their way"

It's a great theory. I read somewhere Masayoshi Son looks in founder's eyes to decide if they are trustworthy, same with George W Bush who would look into other leader's eyes to decide if they are someone he can do business with.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic.

I don't mean about looking someone in the eye, but I do mean cutting through a multiple months long dance to get someone money when they are in a full sprint growing their business, or sitting on their board and meddling when you don't have experience operating a company. I think VCs can learn something from that.

For those who don't get the reference, in 2001 President George W. Bush had this to say about Vladimir Putin:

"I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul; a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country."

Your implication, presumably, being that it is factually a poor way to judge character.

Of course it is, if other side knows this they will train and react in a way to appease. And a KGB apparatchik should know a trick or two about psychology, manipulation etc. Especially quirks of US president, the counterparty in global political games.

He may be internally with himself still working the same 'patriotic' game, but currently in some very f**ed up psychotic way.

But to be honest, I don't believe it - he stole half of Russia, continued and improved system of state-managed corruption and theft, russian population is a poor miserable one more than ever. He clearly doesn't care for murdering fellow close slavs, and other russians neither. But billion dollar worth pallaces and superyachts are fine for 'great leader' I presume.

Actions speak for themselves more than some shallow talks or staged trained looks.

Or maybe its just the good old 'power corrupts' theme. He certainly is just a mere shadow of his former self, at least the part public can see.

I am skeptical any one person , even a typical president can take that kind of decision on their own, however objective or well rounded the metric it could be .

There are teams of career diplomats and intelligence professionals and variety of external stakeholders including business lobbyists, other foreign diplomats and those equations go into a diplomatic decision to publicly endorse someone.

Bush was very much establishment and not an unpredictable wrecking ball like Trump, that was unimaginable 20 years back.

More likely the decision was taken at the point to publicly support Putin and bush articulated it in this rather poor fashion.

The intelligencer community at the time may have had hope that the other power in Russia like the oligarchs to keep Putin in line. Remember this was before Georgia , Chechen and Crimea ; Putin hadn’t yet developed the reputation and consolidation of power he has today.

Considering that Putin never really lied about his goals, despite being extremely under handed and secret with his methods, W's judgement wasn't too far off I'd say.

There seems to be a lot of disagreement and bad judgement around "best interests of his (Putin's) country".

Tiger probably did get pretty good managment fees so they are not losers here.

Yeah, I mean if they are burning whole lot of dumb money, it can be good in a way.