4 ms·

From my experience east cost VCs are mostly former wall st folks, lawyers or family offices who are playing VC. Very few of them have any operating experience,

by neom 6y ago

From my experience east cost VCs are mostly former wall st folks, lawyers or family offices who are playing VC. Very few of them have any operating experience, and if they do, it's at BigCo, not in or around startups. I don't think they are well tuned to what non-traditional success looks like, and as a result they have problems pattern matching.

rdlecler1 6y ago
This has been exactly my experience. Even in the earliest stage startupS they’ll be looking for the fastest line to profitability rather than prioritizing to build something that’s big and important. It’s low conviction investing where the financial model matters more than traditional west coast indicators of future success.
- jariel 6y ago
  "they’ll be looking for the fastest line to profitability rather than prioritizing to build something that’s big and important" First - don't assume that the 'big thing entrepreneurs are building' is in any way 'important'. 9 times out of 10 the 'big thing' is just neat idea, a project, and may have nothing to do with profiability. Most 'grand visions' are that. MS, Amazon, Snap, FB, Insta, Google - they all started pretty small, and worked at a fairly small scale. Surely they had visions, but they were fulfilling needs from the get-go. I think what you are confusing is probably 'risk profile' of smaller VC funds, who in fact, don't have the patience to worry about building large marketplaces for example. It has to do with mentality, but also the size of the funds, and their experience with bigger bets. And of course, nothing compares to SoftBank in terms of a 'massive fund looking to support global penetration'.
  - rdlecler1 6y ago
    Either you missed the point or you’d be a bad VC.
austinl 6y ago
This reminds of startups founded by folks that were former executives at BigCos. Of course, it varies from person to person, but many of them reek of big business formalism that's kind of off-putting. Certainly there are pros and cons that come with that experience.

by neom 6y ago

rdlecler1 6y ago

This has been exactly my experience. Even in the earliest stage startupS they’ll be looking for the fastest line to profitability rather than prioritizing to build something that’s big and important. It’s low conviction investing where the financial model matters more than traditional west coast indicators of future success.

jariel 6y ago
"they’ll be looking for the fastest line to profitability rather than prioritizing to build something that’s big and important" First - don't assume that the 'big thing entrepreneurs are building' is in any way 'important'. 9 times out of 10 the 'big thing' is just neat idea, a project, and may have nothing to do with profiability. Most 'grand visions' are that. MS, Amazon, Snap, FB, Insta, Google - they all started pretty small, and worked at a fairly small scale. Surely they had visions, but they were fulfilling needs from the get-go. I think what you are confusing is probably 'risk profile' of smaller VC funds, who in fact, don't have the patience to worry about building large marketplaces for example. It has to do with mentality, but also the size of the funds, and their experience with bigger bets. And of course, nothing compares to SoftBank in terms of a 'massive fund looking to support global penetration'.
- rdlecler1 6y ago
  Either you missed the point or you’d be a bad VC.

austinl 6y ago

This reminds of startups founded by folks that were former executives at BigCos. Of course, it varies from person to person, but many of them reek of big business formalism that's kind of off-putting. Certainly there are pros and cons that come with that experience.