4 ms·
I think the real change is a decline in the prestige of the VC firm, which is often used as a signalling factor, combined with a rise in the profile of the indi
by nogabebop23 6y ago
I think the real change is a decline in the prestige of the VC firm, which is often used as a signalling factor, combined with a rise in the profile of the individual. It's still a pretty typical VC fund model, with a celebrity face out front. I find it pretty interesting and a little funny that there appears to be real value in differentiating where the money comes from, essentially: "We fund companies with only the purest, artisanal funds, raised without antibiotics or preservatives before they are lovingly invested in your firm".
- scottlocklin 6y agoI think you nailed it. Most name brand VC firms reputations are based on a couple of good decisions early in their careers. The time scales we're talking about scream hindsight bias, and even in the best case where they made good decisions rather than got lucky, whatever cargo cult training baloney they come up with doesn't mean they will continue to make good decisions as they pass the torch to whatever MBA dipshits they dig up as successors.