3 ms·
> Personally I rate the person higher that tries several times, falls, gets up and starts over. Unfortunately that is not the case. Did they really fail if th
by josefx 10y ago
> Personally I rate the person higher that tries several times, falls, gets up and starts over. Unfortunately that is not the case.
Did they really fail if they still have the money to try again? They certainly managed to con their investors at least once. What is a failure when it gets others to pay your rent for at least a year?
- louisswiss 10y agoChip on your shoulder? If you con your investors then there's no chance of starting over. If you make your investors aware of the risks and it just doesn't work out (but you handled the situation well) then you've failed but are still well ahead of those who never tried. Also, although investors may pay your rent for the year, as a founder you're expected to take <50% of your market wage in most cases and you'll be working longer hours, so this isn't a great argument.
- josefx 10y ago> If you con your investors then there's no chance of starting over. A new sucker is born every minute. > as a founder you're expected to take <50% of your market wage in most cases and you'll be working longer hours relying on the assumption that the founder is actually doing work he is getting paid for, or that he didn't hire several friends that receive most of the money. > Chip on your shoulder? Lets say I have a good reason to no longer trust any sheme that the founder can just kill with little consequence to himself.
- louisswiss 10y agoAll true and all reasons why venture capital/startup investing in general requires experience, insight, time and 'losable' capital to do properly... These are the basic risks you need to control for before investing.