4 ms·

Also "For us, at the seed stage, 90%+ of the decision is based on the pedigree and track record of the core team." I have that network and pedigree, and I stil

Also "For us, at the seed stage, 90%+ of the decision is based on the pedigree and track record of the core team." I have that network and pedigree, and I still think this (common) approach is disgusting. Not because it reduces diversity (it does), but because it needlessly excludes those who could transform our biggest consumer and business populations. If you went to a non-pedigreed school (say Howard, Morehouse, etc), if your first job & location wasn't in the valley or NYC (perhaps Dallas, Schenectady, anywhere in the rust belt), if you're in a group which makes networking for the sake of networking with tech bros particularly uncomfortable (women), you won't have access to that network. You may, however, have unique access to America's biggest industries and consumer segments. It's a terrible waste. And all because VCs can't be bothered to open their email. As a total aside, I'm rather surprised that nobody in the valley has yet thought to create an "anti-valley" fund. Intentionally seek out founders in underserved and isolated groups, and give them all an equal shot. I _don't_ mean a diversity fund; I'd be going after companies like Pigeonly, Darkvision, Veerum, etc.

mattnewton 9y ago
I imagine the problem with the anti-valley fund is similar to the prisoners dillema- it takes more than one firm to see a startup through all of its funding, and if no one else bites you'll be left with an underfunded startup. It's probably why the pedigree rule is still in place- it's not rational in a vacuum, but it's a known bias of other firms, and so it makes sense for you to act in that bias as well.
ig1 9y ago
Pedigree/track Record doesn't have to mean tech startups, deep experience in the industry vertical also counts. If you look at say startups serving the oil/gas industry they're mostly founded by founders with industry backgrounds from outside of tech hubs. If you're in that kind of scenario I'd recommend finding people who cross both the industry in question & the tech industry (i.e. angels with a background in the industry, other tech founders in your industry, etc.) Although if you're based outside the major tech hubs it's probably easier to focus on local investors for early rounds.

mattnewton 9y ago

I imagine the problem with the anti-valley fund is similar to the prisoners dillema- it takes more than one firm to see a startup through all of its funding, and if no one else bites you'll be left with an underfunded startup. It's probably why the pedigree rule is still in place- it's not rational in a vacuum, but it's a known bias of other firms, and so it makes sense for you to act in that bias as well.

ig1 9y ago

Pedigree/track Record doesn't have to mean tech startups, deep experience in the industry vertical also counts. If you look at say startups serving the oil/gas industry they're mostly founded by founders with industry backgrounds from outside of tech hubs. If you're in that kind of scenario I'd recommend finding people who cross both the industry in question & the tech industry (i.e. angels with a background in the industry, other tech founders in your industry, etc.) Although if you're based outside the major tech hubs it's probably easier to focus on local investors for early rounds.