3 ms·

While I agree with you there can still be externalities from this ecosystem. Only a very small percentage of people are able to succeed using this model and for

While I agree with you there can still be externalities from this ecosystem. Only a very small percentage of people are able to succeed using this model and for the other 99.99% it would have been better if they built a business focused on something a little more long term. This rip-and-flip startup model is really just a poorly disguised form of gambling. Sure every week someone wins a massive payout, but for society as a whole it is a negative.

oneshot908 10y ago
In my experience, the success rate is a lot higher than 0.01%, I'd guess it to be more in the 5-10% range with a little due diligence applied to the idea and its founders. That's a pretty good bet/gamble for three-letter-title founders and anyone with equity north of 1% for the remainder of this boom cycle. But I agree that startups are a terrible proposition for those with 0.5% or less, which is a matter of choice for the employee who could go get a higher expected return from any of the big tech companies for equivalent (and maybe even much less) time and work. This subject has been rehashed many times on HN. As for society, um, the US (at least) is a "society" composed of many people who treat buying state lottery tickets as a retirement plan. MVP startups IMO are far less toxic than that. That said, when I made a little $$$, the most toxic thing I encountered was several supposed friends suddenly begging me to fund their ideas because VC wouldn't. @#%$ that, I have plenty of my own ideas to bootstrap with my hard-earned cash.
- danieltillett 10y ago
  Is your 5-10% range based on VC funded startups? My number was more across the entire pool of wantrapenuers and on that basis I am probably being generous. Yes it is amazing how people react once they realise you have money.

3 ms·

While I agree with you there can still be externalities from this ecosystem. Only a very small percentage of people are able to succeed using this model and for

by danieltillett 10y ago

oneshot908 10y ago
In my experience, the success rate is a lot higher than 0.01%, I'd guess it to be more in the 5-10% range with a little due diligence applied to the idea and its founders. That's a pretty good bet/gamble for three-letter-title founders and anyone with equity north of 1% for the remainder of this boom cycle. But I agree that startups are a terrible proposition for those with 0.5% or less, which is a matter of choice for the employee who could go get a higher expected return from any of the big tech companies for equivalent (and maybe even much less) time and work. This subject has been rehashed many times on HN. As for society, um, the US (at least) is a "society" composed of many people who treat buying state lottery tickets as a retirement plan. MVP startups IMO are far less toxic than that. That said, when I made a little $$$, the most toxic thing I encountered was several supposed friends suddenly begging me to fund their ideas because VC wouldn't. @#%$ that, I have plenty of my own ideas to bootstrap with my hard-earned cash.
- danieltillett 10y ago
  Is your 5-10% range based on VC funded startups? My number was more across the entire pool of wantrapenuers and on that basis I am probably being generous. Yes it is amazing how people react once they realise you have money.