6 ms·

"I was deciding whether this venture was worth committing to another year of 70+ hour weeks. I need a higher level of certainty than investors do because my tim

"I was deciding whether this venture was worth committing to another year of 70+ hour weeks. I need a higher level of certainty than investors do because my time is more valuable to me than their money is to them. Investors place bets in a portfolio of companies, but I only have one life." That's the key quote in the article. It's a fair decision from his standpoint but I wonder if saying that will lead investors to question his determination in the future (if he tries a new venture). I suppose the investors could also appreciate that he didn't want to waste more of their money if he didn't believe in the product.

chris_va 10y ago
> I suppose the investors could also appreciate that he didn't want to waste more of their money if he didn't believe in the product. Yes, very much so. Startup investments fail all the time, part of the business. Better a clean shutdown than trying to eak out an exit with money that could be better spent elsewhere.
- trustfundbaby 10y ago
  especially if your heart's not in it for whatever reason
onion2k 10y ago
If the situation were really "take the money and do 70+ hours a week for a year" versus "shut down the business" then I'd agree, but that's a false dichotomy. You can run a startup putting in far less time than that; putting in long hours is a choice. You can bring in a team or outsource the parts you don't like. It makes it harder to succee but it's an option. You could (depending on lots of caveats) simply hand the business over to someone else. I respect the author for admitting he didn't want to run the business, and I realise it was his choice to stop in the face of any other options, but I really don't agree with the idea that running a startup requires 70+ hours a week and if you're not willing to put that time in you have to shut down.
- nostalgiac 10y ago
  Although the author phrases it as "70+ hours a week", my assumption is it's not the hours per week that he doesn't want to commit to it, but the total hours involved that it's going to require to solve the situation. Whether that's 70 per week or 5 hours per month, the total amount of hours needed is going to be x,00 or x,000 - and that's time he simply thinks is not a priority or valuable to him.
  - onion2k 10y ago
    There's a total number of hours of work needed to build something, but they don't all have to be put in by one person. It might be one person doing 70 hours a week, but equally it can be two people doing 35 hours each (probably more like 40 hours actually to account for comms, but still, not even close to 70). The hard part is finding someone who can do the role.
  - bkor 10y ago
    I don't agree on the assumption that the total number of hours is a given. If you're working on something 70+ days per week for an entire year, your productivity is going to drop. If you work less, but are refreshed when you start working, you'll be way more productive. Especially if it requires any amount of thinking.
- quanticle 10y ago
  but that's a false dichotomy It's a false dichotomy for self-funded/bootstrapped businesses. But if you consider yourself a startup, you have to deliver growth. It's that pressure that leads to the 70+ hour weeks. It's entirely possible to own and run a business while still putting in reasonable hours. But it's unlikely that business is a startup, by Paul Graham's definition of the word. For reference, Paul Graham defines a startup as: A startup is a company designed to grow fast. Being newly founded does not in itself make a company a startup. Nor is it necessary for a startup to work on technology, or take venture funding, or have some sort of "exit." The only essential thing is growth. Everything else we associate with startups follows from growth.
kristiandupont 10y ago
>I wonder if saying that will lead investors to question his determination in the future You could also argue that it proves his determination, if he does in fact decide to engage in a new venture.
tedmiston 10y ago
> I suppose the investors could also appreciate that he didn't want to waste more of their money if he didn't believe in the product. I didn't get the impression that it was more of their money, but rather the first injection, like a seed round.
daveheq 10y ago
If an investor needs 70+ hours a week of work from one person to consider them determined, I'd question their intelligence, commitment, or financial security, because hiring some help seems like the wiser decision.

chris_va 10y ago

> I suppose the investors could also appreciate that he didn't want to waste more of their money if he didn't believe in the product. Yes, very much so. Startup investments fail all the time, part of the business. Better a clean shutdown than trying to eak out an exit with money that could be better spent elsewhere.

trustfundbaby 10y ago
especially if your heart's not in it for whatever reason

onion2k 10y ago

If the situation were really "take the money and do 70+ hours a week for a year" versus "shut down the business" then I'd agree, but that's a false dichotomy. You can run a startup putting in far less time than that; putting in long hours is a choice. You can bring in a team or outsource the parts you don't like. It makes it harder to succee but it's an option. You could (depending on lots of caveats) simply hand the business over to someone else. I respect the author for admitting he didn't want to run the business, and I realise it was his choice to stop in the face of any other options, but I really don't agree with the idea that running a startup requires 70+ hours a week and if you're not willing to put that time in you have to shut down.

nostalgiac 10y ago
Although the author phrases it as "70+ hours a week", my assumption is it's not the hours per week that he doesn't want to commit to it, but the total hours involved that it's going to require to solve the situation. Whether that's 70 per week or 5 hours per month, the total amount of hours needed is going to be x,00 or x,000 - and that's time he simply thinks is not a priority or valuable to him.
- onion2k 10y ago
  There's a total number of hours of work needed to build something, but they don't all have to be put in by one person. It might be one person doing 70 hours a week, but equally it can be two people doing 35 hours each (probably more like 40 hours actually to account for comms, but still, not even close to 70). The hard part is finding someone who can do the role.
- bkor 10y ago
  I don't agree on the assumption that the total number of hours is a given. If you're working on something 70+ days per week for an entire year, your productivity is going to drop. If you work less, but are refreshed when you start working, you'll be way more productive. Especially if it requires any amount of thinking.
quanticle 10y ago
but that's a false dichotomy It's a false dichotomy for self-funded/bootstrapped businesses. But if you consider yourself a startup, you have to deliver growth. It's that pressure that leads to the 70+ hour weeks. It's entirely possible to own and run a business while still putting in reasonable hours. But it's unlikely that business is a startup, by Paul Graham's definition of the word. For reference, Paul Graham defines a startup as: A startup is a company designed to grow fast. Being newly founded does not in itself make a company a startup. Nor is it necessary for a startup to work on technology, or take venture funding, or have some sort of "exit." The only essential thing is growth. Everything else we associate with startups follows from growth.

kristiandupont 10y ago

>I wonder if saying that will lead investors to question his determination in the future You could also argue that it proves his determination, if he does in fact decide to engage in a new venture.

tedmiston 10y ago

> I suppose the investors could also appreciate that he didn't want to waste more of their money if he didn't believe in the product. I didn't get the impression that it was more of their money, but rather the first injection, like a seed round.

daveheq 10y ago

If an investor needs 70+ hours a week of work from one person to consider them determined, I'd question their intelligence, commitment, or financial security, because hiring some help seems like the wiser decision.