Here is an email from an anonymous MR reader, on exactly that question:
– VCs are in the business of speculating about the future and identifying underestimated trends. They are subjective to evolutionary pressure that selects for heterodoxy.
– As capital supply increases, the importance of differentiation on other axes increases. VCs have a growing incentive to personally market their product.
– VCs lack conventional bosses who could sanction them if they say something ill-advised on Twitter.
– VCs face some of the most asymmetric return distributions of any profession. Two instances of being correct can outweigh being wrong in every other case.
– Much of what supposedly-controversial VCs say is not actually contrarian but widely shared but repressed since most people have a strong disincentive to attract opprobrium. This disparity heightens the oddity of VC twitter.
– Unlike many occupations that profess to be about ideas but often put form above substance, VCs in some substantial sense actually are. What can seem like naivete is often a genuine engagement with the basic questions.
– Therefore, in our shared pursuit of novel ideas, we should give thanks to VC Twitter. Which category of Twitter users is most similar?
Should we expect those seeking VC money to tweet in similarly idiosyncratic ways? They too face long odds on particular projects and tend to end up in equity-heavy positions. Should the most “conservative” tweeters be those with high perks but no job security, for instance still untenured professors? Heads of philanthropic foundations?
Overall, I find it striking that most individuals use Twitter for “double down” strategies, rather than “portfolio diversification” insurance strategies. For instance, people who pursue overall risky courses of career action don’t play it safe on Twitter as a kind of career fall-back or insulation. Perhaps that means at the margin “marketing” is more scarce and valuable than “insurance,” and thus start-ups — and venture capitalists — should pay heed to that.