You are still incredibly early to the space. Most people in the world don't hold any crypto nor do they even know what it is.
Many famous investors and entrepreneurs who came to Silicon Valley in the early 1990s thought they had "missed it." Everything up until now is a sunk cost. Operate accordingly.
I can personally attest that Sam helps out all the companies I've seen that ask, whether or not it helps him in any way. That sort of person is rare in the ecosystem and should be celebrated, not questioned like this. We're attacking him for being honest and giving full disclosure? Really?
The obvious parallel one could draw here is Ron Conway -- these folks help startups because they can, not because they're profiteering. The suggestion is almost offensive given what Sam has done here, which I don't think most people would have had the guts to do. I doubt any legal counsel would have suggested he post this, anyway.
Few folks put in more time, energy, and effort than Sam does to help startup founders, and I think that's partially how he's built up such a world-class reputation.
Sam is making a bold move here with this blog post, given the case. We should be celebrating him doing the right thing here. A lot of folks wouldn't want to publicly touch a topic like this given the legal case.
Any startup would be lucky to have his help, and he's probably the most gracious and helpful person in the startup ecosystem you'll be lucky enough to meet. The fact he's been an investor in the past is, I suspect, more a byproduct of the fact he meets with so many startups as he does. If you spent all day meeting with hedge fund managers, for instance, you'd likely end up being an LP or advisor for at least a couple of them. That doesn't affect the quality of your hedge fund decisions or advice.
Sam has helped me when he had no vested interest in doing so, and I'll always be grateful for that.
You were one of the first people I told about this idea (something like five years ago), and were one of the tutorial's earliest and most enthusiastic supporters. It's pretty cool to see how it's all come together!
I don't think there is a point to this article other than nitpicking. We can all agree she sourced the data from a quote from Danielle Levitas, and that it wasn't scientific or necessarily Danielle's intent. But the point of the slide still stands and this is an obnoxious fluff piece of an article. Mary has her issues but this is silly.
What she did is something we call "bullshitting" or "making it up" because if the data in question really was regarding non-smartphone users then she would have to be either terribly misguided (putting it lightly) or flat out lying.
Whether incompetence or unscrupulousness, it doesn't matter. She shouldn't be uttering such false information promoted so specifically if she promotes her talk or her talk is viewed as a state of the industry report.
She's been in this industry since before most of this site could code.
She is not god or a soothsayer but when she talks about trends people know she has been analyzing the market for a long time and they trust her opinions and facts. She makes one comment on a slide at a private event about people checking their cell phones and all of a sudden you guys are like Chris Hansen busting a pedophile. Relax.
If you want to comment on things tangential to the article as Bram's, that's fine. The point of the article is to harangue Mary for one item which we all KNOW is true.
Take it from someone who probably is 2.5 times the avg age of the avg yc user and therefore was around when she made a name for herself the first time: Meeker is 99% bullshit and 1% luck
There's a big difference between "Hey by the way guys I THINK and from what I OBSERVE the average person takes their phone out 150 times a day" and "Hey guys the AVERAGE SMARTPHONE USER TAKES THEIR PHONE OUT 150 TIMES A DAY [in the fine print: source is total BS, it doesn't say anything about average smartphone users]"
