5 ms·

I'm not suggesting this is why Hoffman et al are going this direction, but this is almost exactly what I would do if I felt that there was an epidemic of portfo

I'm not suggesting this is why Hoffman et al are going this direction, but this is almost exactly what I would do if I felt that there was an epidemic of portfolio companies not being completely transparent about the state of their companies. This gives the an amazing amount of "insider information" that, ostensibly a VC would have but I have found in practice VCs don't have the ability to really get from the regular CEO/operator updates and growth boards.

zentiggr 7y ago
Ok, I don't have any startup experience, but this sounds an awful lot like either injecting a spy, or a commissar, depending on how much influence the person has on operations and strategy. If I were going to try to ramp up an idea, I'd be extremely wary of accepting someone that way, especially if they were expecting to assume any amount of control.
otoburb 7y ago
>>This gives the an amazing amount of "insider information" Couple this with a proof point that specialized teams like Latacora[1] are proving themselves out so they figure why not also get the inside scoop while turbo-charging their portfolio companies. [1] https://latacora.com/ https://latacora.com/
- tptacek 7y ago
  I'm interested in this for the obvious reason that I co-founded Latacora but I'm not sure what you're saying. We don't invest in our client companies.
  - otoburb 7y ago
    I was referring to the idea of even more highly specialized VC/PE operating partners managing functions which were traditionally seen as irreplaceable. Latacora manages a startup's entire infosec function for a period of time allowing founders to focus on more important parts of their business. I don't believe anybody would have thought your model would be possible during a startup's early stages without being managed directy by a tech founder, but Latacora's sucsess invalidates this assumption. If infosec can be managed externally, why not other sacred cows like engineering, marketing or other key gaps where founders need help during their initial year(s)? I think Sweat Equity Ventures is going to explore this question more deeply with this model. I understand that Latacora doesn't invest in client companies -- that's where my analogy ended.
bsder 7y ago
1) Adding a "partner" only helps if he is actually competent. My experience suggests that this is untrue more than the majority of the time. 2) It also means that you are privileging information from your "mole" who may have a different agenda from both the company and the VC. Every time I have seen a VC put an "insider" into a company my advice has been to consign him to metaphorical Siberia. The companies who didn't follow this advice regretted it terribly.

zentiggr 7y ago

Ok, I don't have any startup experience, but this sounds an awful lot like either injecting a spy, or a commissar, depending on how much influence the person has on operations and strategy. If I were going to try to ramp up an idea, I'd be extremely wary of accepting someone that way, especially if they were expecting to assume any amount of control.

otoburb 7y ago

>>This gives the an amazing amount of "insider information" Couple this with a proof point that specialized teams like Latacora[1] are proving themselves out so they figure why not also get the inside scoop while turbo-charging their portfolio companies. [1] https://latacora.com/ https://latacora.com/

tptacek 7y ago
I'm interested in this for the obvious reason that I co-founded Latacora but I'm not sure what you're saying. We don't invest in our client companies.
- otoburb 7y ago
  I was referring to the idea of even more highly specialized VC/PE operating partners managing functions which were traditionally seen as irreplaceable. Latacora manages a startup's entire infosec function for a period of time allowing founders to focus on more important parts of their business. I don't believe anybody would have thought your model would be possible during a startup's early stages without being managed directy by a tech founder, but Latacora's sucsess invalidates this assumption. If infosec can be managed externally, why not other sacred cows like engineering, marketing or other key gaps where founders need help during their initial year(s)? I think Sweat Equity Ventures is going to explore this question more deeply with this model. I understand that Latacora doesn't invest in client companies -- that's where my analogy ended.

bsder 7y ago

1) Adding a "partner" only helps if he is actually competent. My experience suggests that this is untrue more than the majority of the time. 2) It also means that you are privileging information from your "mole" who may have a different agenda from both the company and the VC. Every time I have seen a VC put an "insider" into a company my advice has been to consign him to metaphorical Siberia. The companies who didn't follow this advice regretted it terribly.