3 ms·

Truly curious, why does it "stink" for the loser? Being funded with pay to pursue a failing business venture with a chance at wild financial success seems like

by sneak 2y ago

Truly curious, why does it "stink" for the loser? Being funded with pay to pursue a failing business venture with a chance at wild financial success seems like a pretty good gig.

JohnMakin 2y ago
From the perspective of people with capital, it doesn't. From the perspective of a loser it sucks because they may or may not have invested significant emotional, financial, and otherwise non-fungible capital into a future that relied on the success of this venture (and also the people they employed), and I can tell you from personal experience being an underling when this kind of venture collapses really sucks. Maybe not for founders, but for everyone else it definitely does.
- pas 2y ago
  ... but still, they have just about as much chance as the other guys, no? Competition is a given usually anyway. Maybe even in the same batch having very similar companies makes sense -- see the recent rush of YC funded companies that build on whatever OpenAI released -- because different founders/teams can be introduced to different contacts in the YC network.
dangus 2y ago
You can do the same thing by working a temporary contractor role and playing the local lottery.
rolandog 2y ago
I can hypothesize that it may give startups the incentive to behave in reckless ways (e.g. pursue the MVP instead of the MVSP); think of the modern distortion of "ask for forgiveness, not permission" [0]: > So “Ask forgiveness, not permission” meant: Do the right thing within the organization, whether or not they know it. That way you can help the people that you work for. > It did NOT mean: Move the extrinsic cost to the public domain so that we can profit. [0]: https://changelog.com/posts/what-admiral-grace-hopper-really-meant https://changelog.com/posts/what-admiral-grace-hopper-really...

3 ms·

Truly curious, why does it "stink" for the loser? Being funded with pay to pursue a failing business venture with a chance at wild financial success seems like

by sneak 2y ago

Truly curious, why does it "stink" for the loser? Being funded with pay to pursue a failing business venture with a chance at wild financial success seems like a pretty good gig.

JohnMakin 2y ago
From the perspective of people with capital, it doesn't. From the perspective of a loser it sucks because they may or may not have invested significant emotional, financial, and otherwise non-fungible capital into a future that relied on the success of this venture (and also the people they employed), and I can tell you from personal experience being an underling when this kind of venture collapses really sucks. Maybe not for founders, but for everyone else it definitely does.
- pas 2y ago
  ... but still, they have just about as much chance as the other guys, no? Competition is a given usually anyway. Maybe even in the same batch having very similar companies makes sense -- see the recent rush of YC funded companies that build on whatever OpenAI released -- because different founders/teams can be introduced to different contacts in the YC network.
dangus 2y ago
You can do the same thing by working a temporary contractor role and playing the local lottery.
rolandog 2y ago
I can hypothesize that it may give startups the incentive to behave in reckless ways (e.g. pursue the MVP instead of the MVSP); think of the modern distortion of "ask for forgiveness, not permission" [0]: > So “Ask forgiveness, not permission” meant: Do the right thing within the organization, whether or not they know it. That way you can help the people that you work for. > It did NOT mean: Move the extrinsic cost to the public domain so that we can profit. [0]: https://changelog.com/posts/what-admiral-grace-hopper-really-meant https://changelog.com/posts/what-admiral-grace-hopper-really...