2 ms·

The person ultimately responsible for the success of your company is yourself and most likely you'll fail regardless of VCs. I take issues with some of the sec

The person ultimately responsible for the success of your company is yourself and most likely you'll fail regardless of VCs. I take issues with some of the second order effects: 1. "Because your goal is to sell the company later, it has to grow." You don't have to hire just because you take VC money. You should hire at the right rate. 2. "You’ll be spending much of your time on finding the next investors". If you manage your burn properly you wouldn't have to and you should aim to be default alive. http://www.paulgraham.com/aord.html http://www.paulgraham.com/aord.html 3. "You have to focus on large markets with many (or large) customers" Yes you shouldn't take VC money if you don't want to go big eventually. 4. "Making existing customers happy is less important than acquiring many more new customers" You have to do both and the goal should be to make existing customers so happy that tell others which will drive growth. If you don't make a product people love you won't win in the long run anyways. Finally I think a common mistakes for Founders is making their VC's their boss. Although I agree with some of the sentiment of there is some perverse incentives with VCs as a founder you should take ownership of the decisions that impact your company.

detourdog 3y ago
That list sounds right I think their is nuance for this one >3. "You have to focus on large markets with many (or large) customers" >Yes you shouldn't take VC money if you don't want to go big eventually. One can want to grow to a point of organically understanding the problem domain before going big. The VC and the company may differ on the short term but agree on the long term. Which is a distraction. If the company is doing everything else suggested and the VC pounds on this issue. I would think the ideal time frame for the use of VC funds is probably about 2 years. If the company can't make productive use of the funds and return it in 2 years the timing of the funding is bad. If funding is needed for some large capital expenditure that will depreciate over decades should have existing revenue support. I think Wall Street has created a different industry that is a business model of its own fantasy.

detourdog 3y ago

That list sounds right I think their is nuance for this one >3. "You have to focus on large markets with many (or large) customers" >Yes you shouldn't take VC money if you don't want to go big eventually. One can want to grow to a point of organically understanding the problem domain before going big. The VC and the company may differ on the short term but agree on the long term. Which is a distraction. If the company is doing everything else suggested and the VC pounds on this issue. I would think the ideal time frame for the use of VC funds is probably about 2 years. If the company can't make productive use of the funds and return it in 2 years the timing of the funding is bad. If funding is needed for some large capital expenditure that will depreciate over decades should have existing revenue support. I think Wall Street has created a different industry that is a business model of its own fantasy.