5 ms·

Actually, the ultimate test of a Silicon Valley investor is their return on capital. Your test is projecting your desire onto investors.

supster 11y ago
well said
livecodingwtf 11y ago
Actually, the ultimate test of an SV investor depends on what they've promised their LPs. Don't project your own grossly naive understanding of the industry on them just so you can pretend that you're oh-so-superior to somebody else. It's gross. But this is HN, so gross assholes like you get upvoted.
staunch 11y ago
I was obviously not making a claim about how LPs judge VCs, just stating my own opinion about how I think VCs should be judged. Try to imagine every sentence in a comment is prefixed with "I think..." to test if you're just being snarky or not. In this case, you're just being snarky. (And like most snarky comments, it's not even correct. There is in fact no official test for VCs. Some LPs are socially motivated and would rather lose money than invest in evil companies. Your test is not the one they use.)
- fraserharris 11y ago
  The bulk of your comment is an highly speculative attack on A16Z. Chris Dixon publicly stated they passed on investing initially because of technical obstacles.[1] Their investment in RapGenius was in part because Marc Andreessen tried to build it himself as part of Netscape.[2] A VCs job is to make an ROI for the LPs. "Socially motivated" is just window dressing to attract capital that might otherwise go to a different fund.[3] The significant LPs are primarily restricted by asset allocations. You are projecting your desires onto VC to hope that it is anything different. [1] http://www.wired.com/2013/12/oculus-vr-funding/ http://www.wired.com/2013/12/oculus-vr-funding/ [2] http://genius.com/1107425 http://genius.com/1107425 [3] Pessimistic? Sure. Better to be honest about the underlying motivations and surprised by the outcomes than not.

supster 11y ago

well said

livecodingwtf 11y ago

Actually, the ultimate test of an SV investor depends on what they've promised their LPs. Don't project your own grossly naive understanding of the industry on them just so you can pretend that you're oh-so-superior to somebody else. It's gross. But this is HN, so gross assholes like you get upvoted.

staunch 11y ago

I was obviously not making a claim about how LPs judge VCs, just stating my own opinion about how I think VCs should be judged. Try to imagine every sentence in a comment is prefixed with "I think..." to test if you're just being snarky or not. In this case, you're just being snarky. (And like most snarky comments, it's not even correct. There is in fact no official test for VCs. Some LPs are socially motivated and would rather lose money than invest in evil companies. Your test is not the one they use.)

fraserharris 11y ago
The bulk of your comment is an highly speculative attack on A16Z. Chris Dixon publicly stated they passed on investing initially because of technical obstacles.[1] Their investment in RapGenius was in part because Marc Andreessen tried to build it himself as part of Netscape.[2] A VCs job is to make an ROI for the LPs. "Socially motivated" is just window dressing to attract capital that might otherwise go to a different fund.[3] The significant LPs are primarily restricted by asset allocations. You are projecting your desires onto VC to hope that it is anything different. [1] http://www.wired.com/2013/12/oculus-vr-funding/ http://www.wired.com/2013/12/oculus-vr-funding/ [2] http://genius.com/1107425 http://genius.com/1107425 [3] Pessimistic? Sure. Better to be honest about the underlying motivations and surprised by the outcomes than not.