3 ms·
It removes the requisite hunger level which is a determinant for success. Is this true? I think the hunger is a function inherent in the person. Gates, Jobs
by kenjackson 16y ago
It removes the requisite hunger level which is a determinant for success.
Is this true? I think the hunger is a function inherent in the person. Gates, Jobs, Zuckerberg, Page, Schmidt -- all of them could have quit years before their prime, but none did/have.
The people who are hungry because they're broke are the wrong people to bet on, because if the company is even remotely successful they'll find a way to cash out. There's just no way around stopping that from happening. But if you bet on those for which shipping the next great product is what drives them then giving them some money won't cause them to lose their drive.
- arach 16y agoI agree with you. The people you back hopefully have inherent hunger and achieving some measure of financial success should not slow down their drive. Do we know about the dudes or dudettes who started a promising company but started relaxing after sales hit 10M$? What you could do to keep the incentive: keep the liquidity money in a trust that is accessible only after (a)a making big exit (b) hitting a key company milestone or (c) shutting down the company. This way the founders can make sure it's not a big game of double or nothing while the VCs can make sure the founders aren't shooting rap videos instead of kicking ass.
- davidu 16y agoI think the Gates, Jobs, Zuck breed are rare and it's hard to know when you (a) have an entrepreneur like that and (b) a business that supports longevity. Lots of entrepreneurs say they are in it for the long-haul, but very few VC-backed businesses are sustainable in the long-haul.