5 ms·

Having tried to get a project away for 2 months (and failed so far) It seems like there are a lot of potential CEOs out there with ideas looking for a CTO to d

Having tried to get a project away for 2 months (and failed so far) It seems like there are a lot of potential CEOs out there with ideas looking for a CTO to do the heavy lifting -- and the VCs are all over them -- met multiple in last few weeks with nothing more than an idea As an engineer, with a vast piece of prototype tech funded myself up to this point, and no CEO -- because I don't really want a CEO right now, just some additional R&D funding to clean things up to start that commercialising process -- but VCs don't appear to want to hear that Ex-meme company founder CEOs good, heavy tech R&D without that bad You have to wonder how much deep tech is out there looking for home right now -- that can't get an investor audience without complying with the narrow criteria VCs are putting in place -- 90%+ won't even talk to you if you've not been personally referred

ABCLAW 5y ago
I don't really think it's a case of CEOs good, R&D bad. I think it's more of a case of CEOs not taking no for an answer for mission critical funding. I've been on the chain for many VC connections, and in the room for maybe twenty pitches. In almost all cases a slightly neuroatypical CEO has carpet bombed sources of funding with genuine letters requesting meetings. The process often takes 6-8 months from initial contact to follow-ups, to actually getting a reply, to setting an in-person meeting, then discussing next-steps, referrals, etc. VCs aren't an API; they're VERY busy people. Make sure they know you're committed.
- brainless 5y ago
  That's a very nice way of putting it. I agree that VCs aren't an API. But I think there are builders and there are hustlers. We have a system which is looking to fund hustlers, even if they have zero clue of how to build. And most importantly, most hustlers want to build software products. Yet the builders of those products struggle to find minimum fund to go full time. It's like either you have a great deck and thousand emails or nothing.
  - ABCLAW 5y ago
    >It's like either you have a great deck and thousand emails or nothing. Pretty much. If you can't make the deck yourself, hire a third party to mock one up for you after you've put the content together; let them do the spacing, font, background, design work. Then the emails are on you; set a timer for follow-ups, make a spreadsheet regarding appointments. You're still a builder, but you're gonna be building human connections for a bit. If you reframe things in that way, it's less jarring.
    - brainless 5y ago
      You mean just like the CEO candidate has to find a freelance to get the tech done if they can't find a technical co-founder. Valid point.
    - throwaway1556 5y ago
      An interesting exercise would be for just one fund to not care about deck spacing, font and background ... or whether they have a CEO ... or if founders are ex-FB ... A fund that just backs raw R&D ... with no referrals or exit history ... only evals the tech on merit The few pure R&D funds that do that, to my knowledge, are restricted to university spin-outs right now As things stand today -- the individuals (I know) most capabable of building awesome engineering are the least likely to get through the current VC obstacle courses -- who are all looking for the same needle in the same haystack
      - yaseer 5y ago
        >A fund that just backs raw R&D ... with no referrals or exit history ... only evals the tech on merit Define 'merit'. From the perspective of an investor, merit is commercial potential. Small traction in a large market shows commercial potential. 'Raw R&D' without commercial potential is definitely the domain of universities, not VCs.
  - issa 5y ago
    I think this is true in a lot of industries. I was in the music industry and I quickly learned that it is about hustle and hype more than quality players or songs. In larger companies it is the people who play the "office politics game" that get ahead more than people with skills or good ideas. Such is life.
- notahacker 5y ago
  A corollary of this and the OP's argument is that business-oriented CEOs with an idea that needs building have a lot more free time to carpet bomb prospective funders than engineers already building a product that needs more engineers to deal with the demand that's there. The idea that being too busy with product or customers to jump the hurdles they set could be a bad thing for funding doesn't reflect well on VCs (I'm the first person to argue the importance of knowing how to hunt for business is often underrated by engineers, but not every business needs networking oriented business developer types, and those that do are still better if they can dedicate more time hunting for intros to customers and less hunting for intros to investors)
sidlls 5y ago
It seems like there are a lot of potential CEOs out there with ideas looking for a CTO to do the heavy lifting -- and the VCs are all over them -- met multiple in last few weeks with nothing more than an idea And they want to treat them like poorly paid employees (which, often, they are poorly compensated). People see high compensation for FAANG types and think engineers are respected. Let me tell you, having been in management, nothing is further from the truth. ICs are still ICs, a lower social class, and thought of as such. Any “respect” is simply a temporary condition of the labor market: they’re placated and their egos tolerated until something less expensive comes along.
tmp_anon_22 5y ago
This matches my experience exactly. I was offered multiple CTO positions in my late teens - and I took one, but I was woefully under qualified and it caused a degree of burnout I still haven't fully recovered from a decade later. Steering people early in their careers into underpaid overworked founder positions at poorly led companies can sometimes be hugely destructive. To the people at YC leading this initiative - have you ever matched a CEO with zero management experience to a newer engineer, and have you ever matched a CTO with zero professional engineering experience to a newer CEO?
mNovak 5y ago
Definitely have experienced the struggle of trying to get anyone to pay attention to a hard (not moonshot, just hard) tech pitch. If you're very patient, the military will pay, but it's a long road and more paperwork than tech.
smashah 5y ago
True. I've been burnt a few times by bad CEOs/co-founders. Where I did my part (to build out the product) but they screwed up theirs. Next time a non-technical founder pitches me to come on board and do all the actual work then I'll be requiring the a majority stake. Looking forward to CEO-as-a-service or as part of an investment deal. At the end of the day, CTO-as-a-service does exist and technical work does get outsourced to dev shops using investor money, why not outsource/delegate the remaining non-technical founder work?
c_o_n_v_e_x 5y ago
I can see how this would be frustrating for you, but it boils down to a simple question: do you have / can you prove product market fit? CEOs may only have an "idea" but perhaps theyve demonstrated a strong PMF.

ABCLAW 5y ago

I don't really think it's a case of CEOs good, R&D bad. I think it's more of a case of CEOs not taking no for an answer for mission critical funding. I've been on the chain for many VC connections, and in the room for maybe twenty pitches. In almost all cases a slightly neuroatypical CEO has carpet bombed sources of funding with genuine letters requesting meetings. The process often takes 6-8 months from initial contact to follow-ups, to actually getting a reply, to setting an in-person meeting, then discussing next-steps, referrals, etc. VCs aren't an API; they're VERY busy people. Make sure they know you're committed.

brainless 5y ago
That's a very nice way of putting it. I agree that VCs aren't an API. But I think there are builders and there are hustlers. We have a system which is looking to fund hustlers, even if they have zero clue of how to build. And most importantly, most hustlers want to build software products. Yet the builders of those products struggle to find minimum fund to go full time. It's like either you have a great deck and thousand emails or nothing.
- ABCLAW 5y ago
  >It's like either you have a great deck and thousand emails or nothing. Pretty much. If you can't make the deck yourself, hire a third party to mock one up for you after you've put the content together; let them do the spacing, font, background, design work. Then the emails are on you; set a timer for follow-ups, make a spreadsheet regarding appointments. You're still a builder, but you're gonna be building human connections for a bit. If you reframe things in that way, it's less jarring.
  - brainless 5y ago
    You mean just like the CEO candidate has to find a freelance to get the tech done if they can't find a technical co-founder. Valid point.
  - throwaway1556 5y ago
    An interesting exercise would be for just one fund to not care about deck spacing, font and background ... or whether they have a CEO ... or if founders are ex-FB ... A fund that just backs raw R&D ... with no referrals or exit history ... only evals the tech on merit The few pure R&D funds that do that, to my knowledge, are restricted to university spin-outs right now As things stand today -- the individuals (I know) most capabable of building awesome engineering are the least likely to get through the current VC obstacle courses -- who are all looking for the same needle in the same haystack
    - yaseer 5y ago
      >A fund that just backs raw R&D ... with no referrals or exit history ... only evals the tech on merit Define 'merit'. From the perspective of an investor, merit is commercial potential. Small traction in a large market shows commercial potential. 'Raw R&D' without commercial potential is definitely the domain of universities, not VCs.
- issa 5y ago
  I think this is true in a lot of industries. I was in the music industry and I quickly learned that it is about hustle and hype more than quality players or songs. In larger companies it is the people who play the "office politics game" that get ahead more than people with skills or good ideas. Such is life.
notahacker 5y ago
A corollary of this and the OP's argument is that business-oriented CEOs with an idea that needs building have a lot more free time to carpet bomb prospective funders than engineers already building a product that needs more engineers to deal with the demand that's there. The idea that being too busy with product or customers to jump the hurdles they set could be a bad thing for funding doesn't reflect well on VCs (I'm the first person to argue the importance of knowing how to hunt for business is often underrated by engineers, but not every business needs networking oriented business developer types, and those that do are still better if they can dedicate more time hunting for intros to customers and less hunting for intros to investors)

sidlls 5y ago

It seems like there are a lot of potential CEOs out there with ideas looking for a CTO to do the heavy lifting -- and the VCs are all over them -- met multiple in last few weeks with nothing more than an idea And they want to treat them like poorly paid employees (which, often, they are poorly compensated). People see high compensation for FAANG types and think engineers are respected. Let me tell you, having been in management, nothing is further from the truth. ICs are still ICs, a lower social class, and thought of as such. Any “respect” is simply a temporary condition of the labor market: they’re placated and their egos tolerated until something less expensive comes along.

tmp_anon_22 5y ago

This matches my experience exactly. I was offered multiple CTO positions in my late teens - and I took one, but I was woefully under qualified and it caused a degree of burnout I still haven't fully recovered from a decade later. Steering people early in their careers into underpaid overworked founder positions at poorly led companies can sometimes be hugely destructive. To the people at YC leading this initiative - have you ever matched a CEO with zero management experience to a newer engineer, and have you ever matched a CTO with zero professional engineering experience to a newer CEO?

mNovak 5y ago

Definitely have experienced the struggle of trying to get anyone to pay attention to a hard (not moonshot, just hard) tech pitch. If you're very patient, the military will pay, but it's a long road and more paperwork than tech.

smashah 5y ago

True. I've been burnt a few times by bad CEOs/co-founders. Where I did my part (to build out the product) but they screwed up theirs. Next time a non-technical founder pitches me to come on board and do all the actual work then I'll be requiring the a majority stake. Looking forward to CEO-as-a-service or as part of an investment deal. At the end of the day, CTO-as-a-service does exist and technical work does get outsourced to dev shops using investor money, why not outsource/delegate the remaining non-technical founder work?

c_o_n_v_e_x 5y ago

I can see how this would be frustrating for you, but it boils down to a simple question: do you have / can you prove product market fit? CEOs may only have an "idea" but perhaps theyve demonstrated a strong PMF.