Bass's model fixes the Spence problem. Then it creates a second one.
This is Jonathan Hare's account, with its provenance shown. The person or organization named has not yet claimed or corrected it.
The Consilient collapse is recorded on this site as a structural failure rather than a personal one. This is the structure.
Start with the problem Bass's model solves. Professional money management has an information and incentive asymmetry at its center: limited partners carry the downside, managing partners take a share of the upside — and receive capital gains treatment on it, despite it not being their capital at risk. It is the Spence problem in its purest commercial form, and the standard structure does almost nothing about it.
Robert Bass's approach is old-fashioned and it addresses that directly. He lends the money, and gives his managers as much upside as they can bear given the risk they are taking. The partners hold real, recourse exposure. That is genuine skin in the game, and it mitigates the asymmetry in a way a 2-and-20 fund does not.
Each entry below carries its own provenance — the source, and how it was processed. That is the condition on which this graph can be extended by anyone without degrading.
The trail exists so that people who were there can reconstruct their own memories, recognize what they helped incubate, and add to or correct the record — or forward the few pages that belong to someone they know.
Skin in the game cuts both ways. A partner carrying personal, recourse exposure behaves better than a carried-interest partner in ordinary conditions — and worse in extreme ones, because the downside is now existential rather than notional.
The amplification runs further: on Jonathan Hare's understanding, the principal is liable for his managers' legal liabilities in proportion to his ownership. So in genuinely ugly circumstances, the structure creates pressure on everyone at once — and the pressure lands hardest on the person with the least capacity to absorb it.
Nobody chose this. The principal almost certainly had no visibility into a company this small. That is the argument rather than a mitigation of it: a structure that reliably produces this outcome without anyone intending it is more serious than one requiring a villain, because there is nothing to detect and nobody to stop.
Hare's assessment, and it is worth reading in his own register: Ray was twenty-nine, and one of the smartest and nicest people I've ever met. But he got in over his head, the market collapsed, and he got desperate and did desperate things.
Everyone in technology and venture was desperate in the spring of 2001. Almost everything was failing. Consilient was not — at least the part Hare was responsible for, which was the vision and the term sheets.
Michael Spence was Vice Chairman of Consilient and a partner at Oak Hill. He won the Nobel for market signaling — the study of exactly the information asymmetry Bass's model exists to mitigate.
The corpus extends that result as inverted Spence signaling: participation made nearly costless, so that what is revealed is not the capacity to bear cost but what a contribution actually caused. Costly signaling forces people to burn something to prove a claim, and under enough pressure the burning becomes the point. Removing the cost removes the failure mode. The architecture's answer to 2001 is not better people or better contracts — it is a structure where the aligned move and the self-interested move are the same move, so behavior under pressure does not depend on anyone's character.
There is no single root. This is one view of the graph, from this node — what you see depends on where you enter and what you are looking for.
Three rounds, a silver bullet, and the end of Hare's tenure
Open →the person under itTwenty-nine, and in over his head in the worst spring in a generation
Open →whose Nobel result the model addressesVice Chairman of Consilient, and the introduction into Cisco
Open →the lever it operatedA clause he signed, and the reason there was nothing he could do
Open →the structural answerWhy capturing the network destroys what you captured
Open →why the genome is authored in the openSomebody has to author the genome
Open →This page is the anecdote — the thing that draws you in. The explainers are where the mechanism is set out in full, with the problem it solves and the condition on which it fails.
This entry is deliberately incomplete. The gaps below are the things only certain people can settle — and settling one is a contribution like any other: recorded, timestamped and attributed to whoever made it.
Correct anything wrong, add what only you know, or claim this entry as your own. Write to evidence@qpncatalyst.io and Jonathan directly (both are on the button) — a timestamped confirmation comes back with your submission attached, as your own independent record. No account, no permission, no institutional standing required.
Public contributions earn Publicity Premium; bringing others who were there earns Cascade Premium. Everything is valued retrospectively as outcomes verify, so nothing has to be priced up front.
Correct this entry → Add a story, photo or link → Browse the graph →