Well, perhaps. But Sacca is great at it. Ferriss pulled out because he's no good at it. (Easier to be a charlatan in books rather than investing).

I don't know too many of Ferris' investments, but the few I did know seemed like he would have to change the world almost to make them work. Whereas other investors might have a couple of moonshots like that, but they also have a bunch of investments that solve problems that people face right now, not ones they might face in the future.

I remember he was talking about those protein bars made out of crickets. And there is valid concerns about the future of food with synthetic meats etc. But cricket bars... I mean we are so far off from that being a mass selling product.

Eh that seems a bit harsh. Wasn't Ferris in Uber's pre-seed or seed round? Plus he mentions Facebook, Shopify, Twitter and Alibaba on his AngelList. I'm pretty sure if you're one guy making $25-$100k bets and hit early on any one of those it is more than enough for you to be considered pretty good.

>Ferriss pulled out because he's no good at it. (Easier to be a charlatan in books rather than investing).

Can you elaborate on that? He's spoken about his startup portfolio being a disturbingly high portion of his net worth because it's grown rapidly and is illiquid.

That is proof of poor investing common-sense: startups, without a sensible inbound qualification pipeline, is just about the riskiest kind of investing. Would anyone want a foolish investor (apart from not caring situations) or rather have a shrew investor whom can add value?

Good or lucky? Bad or unlucky? Very tough to tell the difference.

Brand Ferriss LOL. The thing that really sold me on his nut-content was an old blog article which mentally-wandered into mystical, utopian BS.

Too many startup people worship someone, someone they don't really know anything about, like a god just because they can project their hopes and desires on someone whom has mantained their vagueness with elusiveness and seductive propaganda. Like a pied piper for the purposes of manufacturing memes for profit.

Leaving the investing scene and liquidating their positions aren't the same thing, and Chris didn't say anything about selling his stock.

I'm not saying they're the same thing. But there is the appearance that they are effectively "getting out of the game". Not mentioning he is selling stock doesn't mean he hasn't sold some of it. Especially considering Sacca has a lot of Twitter stock and he's ridden the rise and fall from $90+ down to its current levels.

He doesn't own any Twitter: http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/15/twitter-gets-its-worst-cri...

When was Twitter at $90+? I thought it peaked in the high 60s (USD)?

$74.73 (Dec 2013) I believe was the public high