Conversation

SBF
@SBF_FTX
Replying to
@SBF_FTX
14) It's not, uh, *positive*, but it doesn't have to be. It just has to be less negative. And something weird and new and confusing and vague and exciting is in fact less negative than privacy concerns and censorship debates.
7
83
SBF
@SBF_FTX
15) Plus, that negative sentiment was directed towards Facebook. What Facebook? Where? This is Meta!
Image
8
116
SBF
@SBF_FTX
16) But my story still doesn't make full sense. Sure, maybe it explains why Facebook became Meta. By why spend $10b per year on fake legs? Remember Facebook's other problem: it couldn't grow anymore, because it had already grown the maximum amount physically possible.
12
94
SBF
@SBF_FTX
17) How do you project growth on your forward looking financial indications when you've built the biggest possible social media company? You do something other than social media, I guess.
5
69
SBF
@SBF_FTX
18) Something with the following properties: a) People think that maybe it could get really big. Like, $100b revenue big. b) If Facebook plows $10b into it people will be like "yes, that is how you make this thing really big, I guess, sure", and not ask any more questions.
7
66
SBF
@SBF_FTX
19) You need something which is everything and nothing. Something which could be the whole world, but where no one knows what to expect or how to know if you're doing it yet. You need The Metaverse.
8
87
SBF
@SBF_FTX
20) And so that could explain why Facebook did it: to distract from its reputational problems, and to project on a vague and unclear and futuristic enough space that they could convince people that maybe they were going to make another $100b from it, Facebook became Meta.
8
107
SBF
@SBF_FTX
21) Except there's one last problem. Investors have now decided that spending $10b per year on The Metaverse is dumb, and Facebook (er, sorry, Meta)'s stock is tanking. The vague meta guidance is no longer working. And yet Zuck keeps spending.
Image
17
72
SBF
@SBF_FTX
22) Which makes no sense if this is all a diversion. It's one thing to blow $10b/year on smoke bombs. It's another thing to blow $10b/year on smoke bombs that don't produce very much smoke. Why throw good money after bad?
8
70
SBF
@SBF_FTX
23) So, to be clear, I *do* think that the above claims might be true: Facebook wanted to distract people from its reputation and its lack of headroom for growth, and so it became Meta. But I think there's probably something else, too. Something that explains the next $10b.
10
82
SBF
@SBF_FTX
Replying to
@SBF_FTX
25) Facebook has the largest possible social media network on the web. They won. So what's next? Start building Social Media 3.0.
93
353
Dan Garon
@dangaron
Replying to
@SBF_FTX
I think you missed the bigger issue: Apple. The biggest bottleneck to fb’s growth are the hardware platforms. Zuck needs his own, and he thinks it’s VR. But first, VR needs a use case…
1
7
22289d
@real22289d
Replying to
@SBF_FTX
Correct. He believes in it. He thinks it's going to replace the mobile internet. He's believed that for a lot of years. Buying Oculus in 2014 was the first big bet on it. And it's also a very nice distraction.
1
Xander Hoskinson
@xanderhoskinson
Replying to
@SBF_FTX
Awesome thread, really like these! What's interesting about Meta's recent strategy is that they've decided not to use the 'M&A for growth' strategy -> buying other companies to reignite growth e.g. Microsoft buying Github. In-house development from scratch (at scale) is 💸
Show additional replies, including those that may contain offensive content
Show