3 ms·

"Of late, I’ve seen founders very eager to secure fat salaries and to get to liquidity events as fast as possible." This summarizes my disdain for tech. Most s

"Of late, I’ve seen founders very eager to secure fat salaries and to get to liquidity events as fast as possible." This summarizes my disdain for tech. Most startups seem focused on addressable audience size rather than any form of utility. That is symptomatic of VC funding.

spaceman_2020 4y ago
I don’t begrudge the tech, but I have increasing disdain for VCs. If they’re not clueless and greedy (FTX backers are a prime example), they’re elitist and snobbish. There is very little room for founders who don’t have the right pedigree (ex-FAANG, Ivy school). Ironically, of all the startups I’ve worked in/consulted, the most profitable ones (actual profits, not paper profits) were started by non-obvious founders without significant funding or credentials. Tech funding is becoming a little like the old boys club where ex-FAANG/Ivy VCs fund other ex-FAANG/Ivy founders.
- jacooper 4y ago
  I think true profits are starting to matter again for VCs.
ethanbond 4y ago
Not that it characterizes all startups or fully negates this critique, but scale is an important component of utility. Solving a small problem for a billion people will produce more utility (and therefore value) than solving a big problem for 10 people (obviously there are specific tens of people for whom this would be false). FWIW though pretty much all startup advice, and YC’s in particular, is to solve the big thing for 10 people before scaling up.
- shanebellone 4y ago
  As admittedly pedantic as it is... any product that scales to billions of users is really a commodity in disguise. Take social media as an example: It's essentially "attention arbitrage." The raw material is our attention, and the output is their profit. They've built an economic engine by piping excess attention directly to the highest bidder. Also, can you really compare utility in terms of scale? Is it better to improve 1,000,000 lives 50% or 1,000,000,000 lives 1%?

spaceman_2020 4y ago

I don’t begrudge the tech, but I have increasing disdain for VCs. If they’re not clueless and greedy (FTX backers are a prime example), they’re elitist and snobbish. There is very little room for founders who don’t have the right pedigree (ex-FAANG, Ivy school). Ironically, of all the startups I’ve worked in/consulted, the most profitable ones (actual profits, not paper profits) were started by non-obvious founders without significant funding or credentials. Tech funding is becoming a little like the old boys club where ex-FAANG/Ivy VCs fund other ex-FAANG/Ivy founders.

jacooper 4y ago
I think true profits are starting to matter again for VCs.

ethanbond 4y ago

Not that it characterizes all startups or fully negates this critique, but scale is an important component of utility. Solving a small problem for a billion people will produce more utility (and therefore value) than solving a big problem for 10 people (obviously there are specific tens of people for whom this would be false). FWIW though pretty much all startup advice, and YC’s in particular, is to solve the big thing for 10 people before scaling up.

shanebellone 4y ago
As admittedly pedantic as it is... any product that scales to billions of users is really a commodity in disguise. Take social media as an example: It's essentially "attention arbitrage." The raw material is our attention, and the output is their profit. They've built an economic engine by piping excess attention directly to the highest bidder. Also, can you really compare utility in terms of scale? Is it better to improve 1,000,000 lives 50% or 1,000,000,000 lives 1%?