Philosophy Mondays: Human-AI Collaboration
Today's Philosophy Monday is an important interlude. I want to reveal that I have not been writing the posts in this series entirely by myself. Instead I have been working with Claude, not just for the graphic illustrations, but also for the text. My method has been to write a rough draft and then ask Claude for improvement suggestions. I will expand this collaboration to other intelligences going forward, including open source models such as Llama and DeepSeek. I will also explore other moda...

Intent-based Collaboration Environments
AI Native IDEs for Code, Engineering, Science
Web3/Crypto: Why Bother?
One thing that keeps surprising me is how quite a few people see absolutely nothing redeeming in web3 (née crypto). Maybe this is their genuine belief. Maybe it is a reaction to the extreme boosterism of some proponents who present web3 as bringing about a libertarian nirvana. From early on I have tried to provide a more rounded perspective, pointing to both the good and the bad that can come from it as in my talks at the Blockstack Summits. Today, however, I want to attempt to provide a coge...
Philosophy Mondays: Human-AI Collaboration
Today's Philosophy Monday is an important interlude. I want to reveal that I have not been writing the posts in this series entirely by myself. Instead I have been working with Claude, not just for the graphic illustrations, but also for the text. My method has been to write a rough draft and then ask Claude for improvement suggestions. I will expand this collaboration to other intelligences going forward, including open source models such as Llama and DeepSeek. I will also explore other moda...

Intent-based Collaboration Environments
AI Native IDEs for Code, Engineering, Science
Web3/Crypto: Why Bother?
One thing that keeps surprising me is how quite a few people see absolutely nothing redeeming in web3 (née crypto). Maybe this is their genuine belief. Maybe it is a reaction to the extreme boosterism of some proponents who present web3 as bringing about a libertarian nirvana. From early on I have tried to provide a more rounded perspective, pointing to both the good and the bad that can come from it as in my talks at the Blockstack Summits. Today, however, I want to attempt to provide a coge...
>400 subscribers
>400 subscribers
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
I wrote a post not that long ago about how take rate (or rake) is one vector for disrupting incumbent marketplaces. Recently I have seen a number of startups that have taken this to its logical extreme: charge nothing at all. Several of these companies are growing very rapidly. But there is an important catch here: how should they be valued?
Several of the startups in question are raising rounds based on a GMV metric, i.e. the size of their marketplace. Now we have a lot of experience with marketplaces and therefor have a fair number of historical valuations for comparison. Those give us some sense of what a reasonable multiple on GMV would look like *based* on the take rate for rates as low as 20 bps (basis points), i.e. 0.2% take rate.
But 0% take rate? That gets a lot harder. The argument that these startups make is something like “we are optimizing for growth now and will charge later and are targeting a take rate of x%” – as you would expect though valuations are quite sensitive to what x actually winds up being. There is a big difference between 20bps and 5% (25x to be precise).
So if this is your strategy then I have two recommendations. First, don’t wait too long to start charging – it will take you time to figure out how to get it right. Second, base your valuation on a lower x than you think you can reasonably achieve. Otherwise you run a high risk of finding yourself in the post-money trap.
I wrote a post not that long ago about how take rate (or rake) is one vector for disrupting incumbent marketplaces. Recently I have seen a number of startups that have taken this to its logical extreme: charge nothing at all. Several of these companies are growing very rapidly. But there is an important catch here: how should they be valued?
Several of the startups in question are raising rounds based on a GMV metric, i.e. the size of their marketplace. Now we have a lot of experience with marketplaces and therefor have a fair number of historical valuations for comparison. Those give us some sense of what a reasonable multiple on GMV would look like *based* on the take rate for rates as low as 20 bps (basis points), i.e. 0.2% take rate.
But 0% take rate? That gets a lot harder. The argument that these startups make is something like “we are optimizing for growth now and will charge later and are targeting a take rate of x%” – as you would expect though valuations are quite sensitive to what x actually winds up being. There is a big difference between 20bps and 5% (25x to be precise).
So if this is your strategy then I have two recommendations. First, don’t wait too long to start charging – it will take you time to figure out how to get it right. Second, base your valuation on a lower x than you think you can reasonably achieve. Otherwise you run a high risk of finding yourself in the post-money trap.
No comments yet