> Suppose you do need the aggregate to be worth around 400 billion to deliver decent returns. If Andreesen Horowitz catches the next 2 Facebooks ( worth 200 billion each ) over the next 10-15 years and loses money on every single other deal ( an extremely pessimistic assumption ), they can deliver it.
your assumption is that A16Z would own 100% of those 2 next Facebooks... which I don't think I need to point out how wrong that is (sorry, I just did)
let's assume something more realistic, like a16z getting 20% of each 200B company that appears - they would need to invest on the next TEN Facebooks (at an earliesh stage), and that seems a bit harder. and let's not forget that most "unicorns" don't even go past the 10B when IPOing, so in reality, they need a lot more than 10 FBs...
your assumption is that A16Z would own 100% of those 2 next Facebooks... which I don't think I need to point out how wrong that is (sorry, I just did)
let's assume something more realistic, like a16z getting 20% of each 200B company that appears - they would need to invest on the next TEN Facebooks (at an earliesh stage), and that seems a bit harder. and let's not forget that most "unicorns" don't even go past the 10B when IPOing, so in reality, they need a lot more than 10 FBs...