7 ms·

"But optimizing for external validation is a dangerous trap" You dont think this is strongly present in the startup world as well? In a number of ways I think

"But optimizing for external validation is a dangerous trap" You dont think this is strongly present in the startup world as well? In a number of ways I think many in the current form of the startup world are even more hungry for external validation but perhaps in a different way and from a different crowd. "You’re fighting over a fixed pie against well-credentialed peers." This also present in startups but instead of fighting for the next rung on the latter you are battling others for a piece of a limited number of funds, eyeballs, reporter coverage, demand, etc. The point being is that there is always a bottleneck or constraint in any field entrepreneurial or not. I'd agree that for an engineer, while quite rare, startup success has the potential to enhance your career probably more than being a smashing success in corp but both are funnels in different forms.

David 14y ago
Maybe there's always a bottleneck to the wealth you receive, but there's no such bottleneck to the wealth you create. You're not limited in in your creation just because some other startup is doing well. That's also true of working at a larger company, except that larger companies usually have their wealth (product, service, whatever it may be) created and are trying to get more money out of it. Working at one is generally going to involve less raw wealth generation than working at a startup, which I think is part of what the author is trying to say.
- moocow01 14y ago
  I have to respectfully disagree although I hear your what you are saying. If you are a lone coder you have the potential to create something pretty valuable but small with not too many constraints. The game changes when you start to have to utilize "resources" whether that is hiring other people or raising money. Right now for example in the so-called series A crunch many startups are definitely dying because another startup fighting for the same funding is doing better. Same with hiring, if you need other engineers to increase the value of your business and you cant hire the right ones because they are taking other offers it can severely limit your potential.
sskates 14y ago
The only validation that matters for the success of your startup is validation from your customers. And the list of things customers want is endless. Reporters, investors, bloggers, commenters on HN are second order at best, and most of the time don't really matter. There's no fixed pie you're competing for in startups. If you don't believe me, try looking at which YC startups have the most "external validation" after demo day (a lot of blogs publish "top 10" lists, so that might be a good place to start). Then look at those same startups two years later. You'll find the correlation of "external validation" and real success is near zero.
- michaelochurch 14y ago
  The only validation that matters for the success of your startup is validation from your customers. And the list of things customers want is endless. Reporters, investors, bloggers, commenters on HN are second order at best, and most of the time don't really matter. There's no fixed pie you're competing for in startups. There's VC-istan and then there's the ideal of the customer-focused, lifestyle-business. I think you're conflating the two, which is not unreasonable because almost everyone does. VC-istan is a system in which most people can't really play. You don't just decide to be a Founder and get sit-down pitches with Peter Thiel. You can't even get a real reason for a rejection (much less a decent chance at a timely acceptance) until you know people. It's an introduction-based guild system. That's probably inevitable and not the primary evil. The primary evil is that most of these VC-istan companies use "be a real founder some day" as a carrot they dangle in front of clueless 22-year-olds, who fail to realize that as subordinate engineers, they're getting absolutely no progress toward what they were promised. VC-istan is a postmodern corporation, but it's effectively one company. The VCs talk to each other in all kinds of inappropriate ways, and they decide as a group whether you're hot (or not). If you're hot, you get the resources to hire 10 engineers. Or 25. If you're either lucky or a really good judge and hire good ones, you have a shot at something big. "Founder" is just a mid-level PM position in VC-istan. If you're playing the VC-istan career game, you end up caring more about investors and press than customers. Why? Because you're a selfish careerist (you have to be) and your investors will continue to have influence over your success or failure at your next venture. Your customers won't. VC-istan, for businesses, is get-big-or-die. You're competing for scarce resources, whether they be "eyeballs" or investor attention, because if you aren't growing at 100% per year, you're "walking dead", which means yesterday's dogshit. The postmodern corporation of VC-istan treats companies themselves as disposable (which isn't right or wrong, just a different approach). What you're describing, where customers are king, is a different world: slow-growing businesses that are often decried as "lifestyle businesses", but actually comprise the silent majority of new economic activity. These firms might define success as growth at 20% per year instead of 150%. These businesses don't turn into billion-dollar concerns quickly, and they're hard to sell, but if you don't mind being there for 10+ years, they're probably a better option. You're not going to have to sell your soul to remain "in" with the VCs and cool kids, and you can set up shop in a low-COL location like Madison or Portland. The difficulty in starting lifestyle businesses is that you have to put personal savings on the line, and our generation (as a whole) neither has that nor is likely to get there-- ever. You put a lot more on the line when you start one of those than you do when you take a check from a VC. Additionally, the danger, and it's what gives VCs power, is that your lifestyle business ends up having to compete with a VC-funded machine-gunner.

David 14y ago

Maybe there's always a bottleneck to the wealth you receive, but there's no such bottleneck to the wealth you create. You're not limited in in your creation just because some other startup is doing well. That's also true of working at a larger company, except that larger companies usually have their wealth (product, service, whatever it may be) created and are trying to get more money out of it. Working at one is generally going to involve less raw wealth generation than working at a startup, which I think is part of what the author is trying to say.

moocow01 14y ago
I have to respectfully disagree although I hear your what you are saying. If you are a lone coder you have the potential to create something pretty valuable but small with not too many constraints. The game changes when you start to have to utilize "resources" whether that is hiring other people or raising money. Right now for example in the so-called series A crunch many startups are definitely dying because another startup fighting for the same funding is doing better. Same with hiring, if you need other engineers to increase the value of your business and you cant hire the right ones because they are taking other offers it can severely limit your potential.

sskates 14y ago

The only validation that matters for the success of your startup is validation from your customers. And the list of things customers want is endless. Reporters, investors, bloggers, commenters on HN are second order at best, and most of the time don't really matter. There's no fixed pie you're competing for in startups. If you don't believe me, try looking at which YC startups have the most "external validation" after demo day (a lot of blogs publish "top 10" lists, so that might be a good place to start). Then look at those same startups two years later. You'll find the correlation of "external validation" and real success is near zero.

michaelochurch 14y ago
The only validation that matters for the success of your startup is validation from your customers. And the list of things customers want is endless. Reporters, investors, bloggers, commenters on HN are second order at best, and most of the time don't really matter. There's no fixed pie you're competing for in startups. There's VC-istan and then there's the ideal of the customer-focused, lifestyle-business. I think you're conflating the two, which is not unreasonable because almost everyone does. VC-istan is a system in which most people can't really play. You don't just decide to be a Founder and get sit-down pitches with Peter Thiel. You can't even get a real reason for a rejection (much less a decent chance at a timely acceptance) until you know people. It's an introduction-based guild system. That's probably inevitable and not the primary evil. The primary evil is that most of these VC-istan companies use "be a real founder some day" as a carrot they dangle in front of clueless 22-year-olds, who fail to realize that as subordinate engineers, they're getting absolutely no progress toward what they were promised. VC-istan is a postmodern corporation, but it's effectively one company. The VCs talk to each other in all kinds of inappropriate ways, and they decide as a group whether you're hot (or not). If you're hot, you get the resources to hire 10 engineers. Or 25. If you're either lucky or a really good judge and hire good ones, you have a shot at something big. "Founder" is just a mid-level PM position in VC-istan. If you're playing the VC-istan career game, you end up caring more about investors and press than customers. Why? Because you're a selfish careerist (you have to be) and your investors will continue to have influence over your success or failure at your next venture. Your customers won't. VC-istan, for businesses, is get-big-or-die. You're competing for scarce resources, whether they be "eyeballs" or investor attention, because if you aren't growing at 100% per year, you're "walking dead", which means yesterday's dogshit. The postmodern corporation of VC-istan treats companies themselves as disposable (which isn't right or wrong, just a different approach). What you're describing, where customers are king, is a different world: slow-growing businesses that are often decried as "lifestyle businesses", but actually comprise the silent majority of new economic activity. These firms might define success as growth at 20% per year instead of 150%. These businesses don't turn into billion-dollar concerns quickly, and they're hard to sell, but if you don't mind being there for 10+ years, they're probably a better option. You're not going to have to sell your soul to remain "in" with the VCs and cool kids, and you can set up shop in a low-COL location like Madison or Portland. The difficulty in starting lifestyle businesses is that you have to put personal savings on the line, and our generation (as a whole) neither has that nor is likely to get there-- ever. You put a lot more on the line when you start one of those than you do when you take a check from a VC. Additionally, the danger, and it's what gives VCs power, is that your lifestyle business ends up having to compete with a VC-funded machine-gunner.