3 ms·
I recognize there must be good VCs around, but so much of what you see looks really like a kid's game to me. So many douchy people with the same cliche advice a
by version_five 3y ago
I recognize there must be good VCs around, but so much of what you see looks really like a kid's game to me. So many douchy people with the same cliche advice acting like they're visionaries. And a certain kind of "lifestyle" "founder" fawning all over them. Starting a company has been commoditized and turned into an internship for smart kids. I know it's not all like this but for anyone seriously interested in doing something different, the whole scene comes off as very unappealing.
- freediverx 3y agoVC is a cancer on society. No exceptions.
- dang 3y agoOk, but can you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News? We're hoping for something different here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- fullstackchris 3y agoI think it falls into a few categories: and you can _feel_ the difference. There is type one: the company just going through the motions because they're just the NPC that feels "oh I now its time to 'do' VC because that's what everyone does" Then another type: some of the deep tech startups full of super smart people, even publishing papers, and are usually backed by one or more major institutions (universities, companies, etc.) you can literally feel the passion pouring out of their employees Then even still there is a third but very rare type: that startup that bootstrapped itself to profitability without any VC at all! (IMO most impressive and difficult)
- disgruntledphd2 3y agoGitHub did this, and took VC later on.
- mafuyu 3y agoVCs want to feel good about investing in innovative and exciting startups that will give them massive returns, and the free market responds with founders who meet their emotional needs by selling personalities that are quirked up and coked out with just a hint of sociopathy. Truly a virtuous cycle.
- tptacek 3y agoIt's an availability bias. You're noticing the worst founders and VCs, because the worst of them work to be noticed (some good ones, too, but all the worst ones). But as long as you understand the modality, it's also fallacious to write off a whole financing model just because its douchiest practitioners rub you the wrong way. Remember Sturgeon's Law!
- jacquesm 3y agoExactly, if it bleeds it leads and boring VC stories (of which there are many) don't make for good headlines.
- peter422 3y agoI remember when "silicon valley" came out, and after watching a few episodes I thought it was so stupid and unrealistic... This isn't how startups operated. Then I talked with other people in the startup world who said it was a perfect match. That's when I realized that I just worked at competent places.
- yowlingcat 3y agoAbsolutely. The successful sleepers that are founders and VCs are sleepers very deliberately. They don't want the notoriety. They're already well-known enough by the people that matter, the outcomes they've generated. They are already freed by the wealth they've generated. What does notoriety do but subtract from that?