3 ms·

I'd be less interested in arguments than seeing hard data that analyzes the correlation between funding and successful outcomes. Money buys you time and resour

by cubes 16y ago

I'd be less interested in arguments than seeing hard data that analyzes the correlation between funding and successful outcomes. Money buys you time and resources. Yes, there are famous examples of startups that have burned through scads of cash, and failed, but I think there's a selection bias in those stories; it's less remarkable when a well funded startup succeeds.

abyssknight 16y ago
Not sure why your posts are being down voted. Up voted to keep the discussion fair. Just because I may not share your opinion shouldn't mean that you can't be heard. :)
- cubes 16y ago
  Thanks for being a good spirit. I guess Haters gonna hate: http://teddziuba.com/images/step-1-load-the-gun-step-2-kill-yourself-step-3-theres-no-step-3.jpg http://teddziuba.com/images/step-1-load-the-gun-step-2-kill-...
pg 16y ago
The empirical evidence strongly favors taking funding. If you try making a list of successful startups, without thinking about whether they took funding or not, you'll find practically all the companies on your list took funding. The fact that the few who succeed without raising money tend to be famous on that account is evidence of how rare that combination is.
- samd 16y ago
  It's not that simple though, funding comes in many forms and at different times. Maybe large amounts of money upfront without any product is bad, but large amounts of funding after having built something and gotten traction is good. If money were of no concern and you were solely interested in maximizing their chances of success would you give each Y Combinator company 10 or 100 times as much money?
  - pg 16y ago
    Yes. They do get 100x as much money when they raise series A rounds, and I don't consider the ones that raise series A rounds to be headed for disaster as a result. Nor empirically do they seem to be.
    - samd 16y ago
      I think there is something powerfully motivating about having such a limited amount of time and money to build your product. There probably is no ideal solution, different teams flourish under different conditions.

by cubes 16y ago

abyssknight 16y ago

Not sure why your posts are being down voted. Up voted to keep the discussion fair. Just because I may not share your opinion shouldn't mean that you can't be heard. :)

cubes 16y ago
Thanks for being a good spirit. I guess Haters gonna hate: http://teddziuba.com/images/step-1-load-the-gun-step-2-kill-yourself-step-3-theres-no-step-3.jpg http://teddziuba.com/images/step-1-load-the-gun-step-2-kill-...

pg 16y ago

The empirical evidence strongly favors taking funding. If you try making a list of successful startups, without thinking about whether they took funding or not, you'll find practically all the companies on your list took funding. The fact that the few who succeed without raising money tend to be famous on that account is evidence of how rare that combination is.

samd 16y ago
It's not that simple though, funding comes in many forms and at different times. Maybe large amounts of money upfront without any product is bad, but large amounts of funding after having built something and gotten traction is good. If money were of no concern and you were solely interested in maximizing their chances of success would you give each Y Combinator company 10 or 100 times as much money?
- pg 16y ago
  Yes. They do get 100x as much money when they raise series A rounds, and I don't consider the ones that raise series A rounds to be headed for disaster as a result. Nor empirically do they seem to be.
  - samd 16y ago
    I think there is something powerfully motivating about having such a limited amount of time and money to build your product. There probably is no ideal solution, different teams flourish under different conditions.