3 ms·

I'd say for founders time spent is a much more important factor than it is for VCs since a founder can only bet on one company. I have no clue about average ti

by jerrre 8y ago

I'd say for founders time spent is a much more important factor than it is for VCs since a founder can only bet on one company. I have no clue about average time between rounds but if we say 1 year for every round, (1y for seed, 2y for A etc) only going from seed to A is a meaningful improvement if you calculate $/y.

jacquesm 8y ago
It's about the same in practice actually. Founders and VCs both have the same critical resource: time. For founders because they bet on only one horse and it needs to work, for VCs because they bet fractionally on multiple horses and there are only so many bets they can place if the bets are to be meaningful. If you multiply the chances of success by pay-out in case of success it turns out the positions of a partner at a fund and a founder are roughly the same. The biggest difference is that the founder has much more control over the outcome than the VC (which is one reason why VC returns suck).