Root for the Uber IPO to Fail

<i>&gt; Finally, the venture capital world will become even more clubby. That clubbiness has its virtues: strong networks of successful investors and entrepreneurs help ensure that the best opportunities are funded.</i><p>Does it? I can&#x27;t think of many things <i>less</i> meritocratic than not being able to fund your idea because you don&#x27;t happen to know any millionaires. How exactly do we know that these networks aren&#x27;t letting the best opportunities fall through the cracks?

&gt; <i>Winning requires one of the deep-pocketed players, so companies are competing on funding rather than through their products.</i><p>This is the crux of the article. The author suggests that a failed IPO would break SoftBank and those trying to be like it and return us to a time where VCs chase good products instead big deals and so the companies will need better products.

&gt; the best opportunities [..]<p>&quot;Best&quot; for whom?<p>Would it be unfair to think of VCs as &#x27;People who already have money, wanting to make even more money&#x27;?

is there a rebuttal to this?<p>would be interested in reading something that addresses the authors points directly.

.

tl;dr Cut off my nose to spite my face

The NYT paywall seems to have gotten more stringent. Guess I&#x27;ll pass: I already subscribe to the local paper, the Washington Post and The Economist.