3 ms·
The problem is not that fundraising feels like a test, it's that fundraising is a test posed by authority figures, and by pg's own definition, is probably hacka
by guptaneil 7y ago
The problem is not that fundraising feels like a test, it's that fundraising is a test posed by authority figures, and by pg's own definition, is probably hackable. How hackable is proportional to the quality of the VC.
Luckily startups themselves are indeed not a test. So you can avoid any test by making enough revenue to not need external funding, but the second best strategy is take the VC's test without trying to hack it as your own test of the investor. Assuming you're a good investment, you'll beat those trying to hack the test unless the investor's test is susceptible to hacking. If you're not a good investment (which is by definition not obvious in the early days), maybe you should just try to learn to hack the test? Ironically, one of YC's biggest value adds is that it helps you hack those tests by lending you their name.
- ignoramous 7y agoPaul, though he doesn't reference his previous essay [0] (which has a section on gaming the system) in the current one, did write then that fooling the investors and treating it like a test is only going to delay the inevitable. [0] http://paulgraham.com/before.html http://paulgraham.com/before.html