Do you intend to account for inflation in this market?

@DavidFWatson No that was not my intent. I don’t think inflation will make $1bn valuation level any less meaningful

@Putcallparity depends on how much inflation though right?

https://manifold.markets/SIMOROBO/will-the-inflation-rate-in-the-us-r?r=RGF2aWRGV2F0c29u

@DavidFWatson if there is so much inflation that the term unicorn starts to refer to a different amount I will use my best judgement to adjust the amount. If a unicorn still refers to a $1bn valuation by 2030 I will not inflation adjust.

@Putcallparity I’m not certain language would change if 1b in 2030 = 250m 2025. But we’d have predicted a very different thing.

People talked about millionaires in the 1910s and they still do today, but it’s not the same

@DavidFWatson Your point on the term "millionaires" makes sense to me and I've been convinced. I will adjust for inflation on this market and will amend the description as such.

Someone sold his startup for $80 million, which he built almost single-handedly:

https://www.calcalistech.com/ctechnews/article/y0kdgmw7a

@TimothyJohnson5c16 ah, this brings me back to the days when people proved that blogging is profitable by starting a blog about how to make money blogging. We really are at the height of the bubble.

@TimothyJohnson5c16

"On the day of the sale, we had six employees: two in support and the rest programmers."

@FergusArgyll Yeah, the interview makes it sound like most of those people were hired after he was planning to sell.

But I think that's a sign that even if it becomes technically possible to build a unicorn singlehandedly, most people would still choose to hire at least a handful of employees along the way.

@TimothyJohnson5c16 right - that's my thinking too...

"person" meaning "human", or would a sufficiently advanced AI count as a person?

@ArmandodiMatteo

person

/ˈpəːsn/

noun

1. 1.

   a human being regarded as an individual.

   "the porter was the last person to see her prior to her disappearance"

@ArmandodiMatteo No

@Putcallparity you mean "no" to the latter not the former, right?

@ArmandodiMatteo apologies, I now realized I should have given your question a bit more thought. I think this question might be worthy of a poll.

Dario just said he thinks this will happen in 2026

Near-duplicate of https://manifold.markets/SimoneRomeo/will-there-be-a-oneperson-unicorn-b

I like the idea, but I think it'd be so weird for a 1 person company to IPO or even fundraise such that there's a traditional valuation.

It could be a direct listing for founder to get liquidity rather than capital raise in the IPO sense (will edit the comments to specify that). That said I totally get your point. I’ll consider adding a clause which would use an operating income multiple to value the company in case these solo startups get big and don’t raise capital or seek external liquidity. Would love to hear your thoughts.

@Putcallparity I'd like to see a second market based on income or something similar.

Personally, I wouldn't mess to much with the criteria on this one. I think it's got merit as-is, we just also need to consider how a solo founder will operate differently.

An acquisition at 1bn+ could indeed happen but it's hard.

I don't see how a 1 person company could IPO considering how much tedious work that is. You'd hire a CFO first.

I don't see either how you could raise money twice and not hire anyone. How are you spending this money? 100% on GPUs? It takes time to spend money and if you're worth a billion why do all of it yourself.

@figo Could be to cash out, but likely compute costs.

@Putcallparity cashout is indeed an option I'm not sure there is a case of a company with a single employee that did 2 cash-out that were public (a single public one is rare enough).

GPU can be a good reason I guess, still a NO at 23% IMO but a cool market indeed :)