4 ms·
That's the point. It doesn't matter what they did previously or who they are. The current product can only be judged on it's merits.
by bravoetch 7y ago
That's the point. It doesn't matter what they did previously or who they are. The current product can only be judged on it's merits.
- tw04 7y agoIt absolutely does matter... someone with a track record of success will and deserves to get the benefit of the doubt when starting something new compared to someone with a poor track record or no record at all.
- JoeAltmaier 7y agoIts a biased population? Self-selecting? A track record may be 'somebody who was at the right place at the right time'. A track record of winning the lottery, for instance, doesn't mean squat. A track record means, at bottom, that they had no disqualifying traits.
- tw04 7y agoIronic you should pick winning the lottery, because it absolutely DOES mean squat. For instance, the only person I'm aware of with a "track record" of winning the lottery had a system to consistently win the lottery. Had you given your money to him you'd be rich. https://www.inc.com/bill-murphy-jr/this-couple-found-a-math-error-in-lottery-made-27-million-playing-over-over-for-55-weeks.html https://www.inc.com/bill-murphy-jr/this-couple-found-a-math-...
- OkGoDoIt 7y agoI agree, but also “no disqualifying traits” is more valuable than you are giving it credit for. If you want to use the scarce signals available to judge the prospects of a very new startup, biasing for founders with no disqualifying traits is probably not a bad start. There’s a reason YC, TechStars, etc all explicitly say they invest in founders more so than product ideas.
- JoeAltmaier 7y agoSure. But the number of that kind of person, number in the thousands. Then hundreds of thousands.
- wott 7y agoThe track record of Software startupers/leaders/influencers/whatever going Hardware, boasting with overconfidence before even starting, is abysmal.