Really interesting article. Reminds me a lot of the book Adaptive Markets (Adaptive Markets: Financial Evolution at the Speed of Thought https://www.amazon.com/dp/0691191360/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_glt_...)

I get that, but there are biotechs that can get funded on an order of magnitude of tens or hundreds of millions. If the Vision Fund with $100 billion can't make biotech investments work, who could? That's kind of my point; if Vision Fund at scale can't make risky investments work, who could? The only alternatives are the existing profit-machines like Google (Google X) or governments.

I am also not the only one with this thought; Professor Andrew Lo of MIT has a final chapter in his book "Adaptive Markets" about how he might structure a similar "big problem solving fund" akin to the Vision Fund but with arguably bolder ambitions.

https://www.amazon.com/Adaptive-Markets-Financial-Evolution-...

https://publicpolicy.wharton.upenn.edu/live/news/2784-can-fi...

And before someone argues that "they're likelier to lose a lot of money trying riskier investments", they just seemingly lost a lot of money on the "easier" investments. So if you're going to lose money, I'd rather it be on trying to solve hard problems than paying Adam Neumann.