I think that is confusing second and third order considerations with first order considerations that actually drive investors choices.
Perhaps monetary policy affects the macro environment by making investment money available, but each investment is a micro decision by one firm, driven by a thesis. I find it hard to believe that investors think monetary policy is an important basis for betting on Lyft or the like.
That’s like say “I won’t start a company unless tax rates are lower”. No one does that, no one cares, maybe we care later. But when you’re thinking about the founding decisions paying taxes is several orders removed from: product, team, financing, revenue, break even etc.
" ... then you're a product" 2.0. Somewhat similar to the role of a patient in the medical business - ie. the role of gauge boson mediating the insurance-provider field interaction.
Lyft just IPOd with a market cap of ~20 billion on net income of minus 1 billion that is part of a 3-year down trend.
If monetary policy is causing inflated stock prices (and it isn't causing consumer inflation, so it probably is pooling in asset markets) then it seems quite rational for a VC to invest in Lyft for the sole purpose of having a stock to float without paying any attention to the other details. The evidence there is simply having a ticker and buzz is more valuable than details like returns and profits.
Lyft is basically employing its customers to make its revenue look good. It is difficult to see how they will translate that into a good idea.