>I really wish we had more people with capital that took big risks on things that are unlikely to succeed, but would materially bring the world forward if they did.
If this is the desired outcome, how do you tell the difference between an entrepreneur and a con-man?
Savvy investors should know the laws of physics and be able to make a decent educated guess regarding what limitations are caused by fundamental limits, and what are instead the result of a e.g. any random local maximum, institutional inertia, lack of imagination, a long-standing duopoly and so on. Plus factor changing technological possibilities into this.
I don't think it's such a big deal if a few private investors lose their investment to a con, but there are a lot of smart people out there. Not everyone stated boldly that reusable rockets are impossible, that no social network could have better success than MySpace, that mobile phones had to have a keypad and only run pre-installed software or that electric cars could never be a viable competitor.
If this is the desired outcome, how do you tell the difference between an entrepreneur and a con-man?