4 ms·

"Basically, we are spending my entire life-time earnings every four weeks" What the hell, did I seriously just read this? So this guy hasn't even made $18,000

"Basically, we are spending my entire life-time earnings every four weeks" What the hell, did I seriously just read this? So this guy hasn't even made $18,000 in income in his entire life yet he is funded for a startup at approximately $216,000 per year. Thats great that he can get funding given his complete lack of real work experience but thats just a bit unsettling and scary, are we really going down the dotcom bust road again? I'm similar in age (26) and have made well over 18,000 in my lifetime earnings (anyone who works as even the juniorest of junior dev's should blow that number out of the water in half a year even), work as a dev and I don't think I would even dream of taking any amount of money in funding anytime soon, what ever happened to working for a few years, learning from more experienced peers and then maybe trying it on your own (once you actually have some real financial stability of your own)? I realize everyone thinks they have the next big idea but if you don't have solid dev experience (without any oversight) you are going to mess up on something, probably something that matters (and won't be realized until later down the road) and this is best prevented by working with more experienced developers early on

sshrin 15y ago
Hopefully the author meant "life-time savings".
jstuder 15y ago
We think that funding young people and their ideas is an important thing to do. And frankly, $216k is a reasonable amount for what retickr is trying to accomplish (cutting the noise out of social media overload). Will they fail? probably. Is it the job of venture capitalists to fund that failure? We damn sure think so. Is $216k a year a smarter initial investment than $41m for an experienced team of entrepreneurs? (see Color). Or $30m for a wiki based company that pivots into gossip? (see Wetpaint). For the money that was invested in Color (and any number of other startups run by "experienced" management teams), we could theoretically start 80 retickrs (assuming 2 years of burn rate for retickr). Or over 1,000 YC companies..... Retickr is making mistakes, some of which we, their investors, warned them against. But a good investor doesn't dictate to entrepreneurs, we mentor and guide. If we wanted to be the CEO of a startup, we would do that. We’re trying to leverage our experience. And assuming a de facto role as CEO at each of our portfolio companies is the exact antithesis of scaling. At least until we figure out cloning or consciousness replication....#ss11 Btw, thanks to the whole community here, you’re doing an amazing job of creating a healthy environment where crazy people like Travis who are willing to put themselves out there in the open can get honest and productive feedback. Kudos
- devs1010 15y ago
  I just look at it from an engineering perspective, having worked for some companies where the code base was just "hacked" together, in an unmaintainable way and I just sometimes think it would be better for the tech community as a whole if everyone and their mother didn't try to start a company with little experience ( a few years down the line, sure go start one, no problems with that), sure they may have some minor success but it just exacerbates bad development practices and these young companies usually hire more unexperienced developers and the effect just snowballs. I am talking from my own experiencing working with "post-startup" companies that were a few years old to where I am just glad I have continued learning on my own (reading online, reading books, etc) as anti-patterns and bad practices that can occur without experienced dev's on a team can really cause problems. In the interest of full disclosure, before I got really into software development / programming, I too had a lot of ideas, wanted to start my own companies (even tried to do so with some small ecommerce stores, etc) but overall I'm glad I didn't succeed with that because it forced me to learn development and realize just how hard and involved making a scalable web app really is and if I ever go on to make a real serious attempt at creating a new company (not for a few years at least) I think I would be in a better position to make a real contribution and make something that is technically sound and viable.

sshrin 15y ago

Hopefully the author meant "life-time savings".

jstuder 15y ago

We think that funding young people and their ideas is an important thing to do. And frankly, $216k is a reasonable amount for what retickr is trying to accomplish (cutting the noise out of social media overload). Will they fail? probably. Is it the job of venture capitalists to fund that failure? We damn sure think so. Is $216k a year a smarter initial investment than $41m for an experienced team of entrepreneurs? (see Color). Or $30m for a wiki based company that pivots into gossip? (see Wetpaint). For the money that was invested in Color (and any number of other startups run by "experienced" management teams), we could theoretically start 80 retickrs (assuming 2 years of burn rate for retickr). Or over 1,000 YC companies..... Retickr is making mistakes, some of which we, their investors, warned them against. But a good investor doesn't dictate to entrepreneurs, we mentor and guide. If we wanted to be the CEO of a startup, we would do that. We’re trying to leverage our experience. And assuming a de facto role as CEO at each of our portfolio companies is the exact antithesis of scaling. At least until we figure out cloning or consciousness replication....#ss11 Btw, thanks to the whole community here, you’re doing an amazing job of creating a healthy environment where crazy people like Travis who are willing to put themselves out there in the open can get honest and productive feedback. Kudos

devs1010 15y ago
I just look at it from an engineering perspective, having worked for some companies where the code base was just "hacked" together, in an unmaintainable way and I just sometimes think it would be better for the tech community as a whole if everyone and their mother didn't try to start a company with little experience ( a few years down the line, sure go start one, no problems with that), sure they may have some minor success but it just exacerbates bad development practices and these young companies usually hire more unexperienced developers and the effect just snowballs. I am talking from my own experiencing working with "post-startup" companies that were a few years old to where I am just glad I have continued learning on my own (reading online, reading books, etc) as anti-patterns and bad practices that can occur without experienced dev's on a team can really cause problems. In the interest of full disclosure, before I got really into software development / programming, I too had a lot of ideas, wanted to start my own companies (even tried to do so with some small ecommerce stores, etc) but overall I'm glad I didn't succeed with that because it forced me to learn development and realize just how hard and involved making a scalable web app really is and if I ever go on to make a real serious attempt at creating a new company (not for a few years at least) I think I would be in a better position to make a real contribution and make something that is technically sound and viable.