4 ms·

The author seems to pick surface level similarities between completely disparate things and claims they are the same. >>The transformation of fund-raising acti

by ajju 13y ago

The author seems to pick surface level similarities between completely disparate things and claims they are the same. >>The transformation of fund-raising activities from genuine negotiations between evenly matched parties to “pitch cultures” that hew to ritual “know your place” expectations on the part of investors Someone invite Venkatesh to a YCombinator demo day so he can get an idea of what the real dynamics are like. He fails to understand that there are still genuine negotiations between investors and startups but instead of having 1, 2 or may be 3 possible investors as founders did before demo day, founders now have potentially 500 possible investors. What impact does he think that has on those genuine negotiations? Who does he think has an upper hand now? The idea that founders have been degraded and must "know their place" is such utter bullshit. >>At least in the early stages, investors entirely run the game. Nothing could be further from the truth. If he looked below the surface at what the standard investment templates actually do for example, he would realize that entrepreneurs now have more control than they ever did. If anything, early stage entrepreneurs now have more power than they have had in a long long time. Disappointing.

bryanlarsen 13y ago
You`re making his point stronger, not weaker. >> founders now have potentially 500 possible investors This speaks directly to the OP's central point of "legibility". The process is open, anybody can participate. You don't need secret knowledge or connections to do these deals; all you need is a worthy pitch or money to come to the table. You can get good terms. That`s the point. It`s much more difficult for investors to squeeze you; it`s also much more difficult for you to pull off a coup like the one Bill Gates did on IBM. I think you`re reading the article wrong. Not surprising given the title and our forum. Obviously hacker news sympathizes with the entrpreneurs. The title implies that the investors have won and the entrepreneurs have lost. In fact, it makes a quite convincing argument that Wall Street & the traditional investment class are among the losers. It`s saying that the big winners are Google/Facebook/Apple/Microsoft, et cetera. They made 10's of billions. The era of making 10's of billions is over. The rest of us are part of the "new middle class". But it seems that the "new middle class" consists of those who are either pulling in salaries over $150K working for the winners or those who make millions through aqui-hires, fairly priced venture deals or bootstrapped "lifestyle" companies. Sounds good to me. Another thing that sounds good to me is the decline of the "entrepreneur as scoundrel". Bill Gates made 50 billion by exploiting information asymmetry. Todays entrepreneurs make 50 million by building better mousetraps. The biggest winner is the consumer.
- michaelochurch 13y ago
  The era of making 10's of billions is over. I never cared about that shit. I'm fine with financial mediocrity, defined as capturing a small percentage of the value delivered to society. At some point, you have to call it enough. Once you can raise a family in good conditions (granted, in New York that's about $500-600k because of the insane cost of living and education) you are a bit nutty if you keep playing the money game. If you genuinely enjoy your job, that's different. But playing the money game beyond upper-middle-class is insane, because (a) the people get worse, and (b) returns diminish. Financial mediocrity is fine. It's really competitive to get into the true upper tier and, even though I'm smarter than the fuckers who are winning that game, they have a 30-year head start on account of being born ruthless assholes, whereas I'd have to learn it. I'm willing to let those assholes have their private jets. Enjoy. What I can't stand for, and never will, is being made to do mediocre work. If you're going to get $2 million out of me each year and pay me only 10% of what I deliver, then fine. We'll do it that way. I won't stand to be assigned mediocre work that is essentially evaluative. If you don't trust me already to do great work from the first day, then I don't trust or like you so get the fuck out of my way.
  - jwhitlark 13y ago
    I had a financial fraud investigation professor who always said that getting rich was easy if that was the only thing you cared about.
- im3w1l 13y ago
  >>>> founders now have potentially 500 possible investors >>This speaks directly to the OP's central point of "legibility". The process is open, anybody can participate. You don't need secret knowledge or connections to do these deals; all you need is a worthy pitch or money to come to the table. 500 investors, means that the Investors become interchangeable. The investors become legible.

by ajju 13y ago

bryanlarsen 13y ago

You`re making his point stronger, not weaker. >> founders now have potentially 500 possible investors This speaks directly to the OP's central point of "legibility". The process is open, anybody can participate. You don't need secret knowledge or connections to do these deals; all you need is a worthy pitch or money to come to the table. You can get good terms. That`s the point. It`s much more difficult for investors to squeeze you; it`s also much more difficult for you to pull off a coup like the one Bill Gates did on IBM. I think you`re reading the article wrong. Not surprising given the title and our forum. Obviously hacker news sympathizes with the entrpreneurs. The title implies that the investors have won and the entrepreneurs have lost. In fact, it makes a quite convincing argument that Wall Street & the traditional investment class are among the losers. It`s saying that the big winners are Google/Facebook/Apple/Microsoft, et cetera. They made 10's of billions. The era of making 10's of billions is over. The rest of us are part of the "new middle class". But it seems that the "new middle class" consists of those who are either pulling in salaries over $150K working for the winners or those who make millions through aqui-hires, fairly priced venture deals or bootstrapped "lifestyle" companies. Sounds good to me. Another thing that sounds good to me is the decline of the "entrepreneur as scoundrel". Bill Gates made 50 billion by exploiting information asymmetry. Todays entrepreneurs make 50 million by building better mousetraps. The biggest winner is the consumer.

michaelochurch 13y ago
The era of making 10's of billions is over. I never cared about that shit. I'm fine with financial mediocrity, defined as capturing a small percentage of the value delivered to society. At some point, you have to call it enough. Once you can raise a family in good conditions (granted, in New York that's about $500-600k because of the insane cost of living and education) you are a bit nutty if you keep playing the money game. If you genuinely enjoy your job, that's different. But playing the money game beyond upper-middle-class is insane, because (a) the people get worse, and (b) returns diminish. Financial mediocrity is fine. It's really competitive to get into the true upper tier and, even though I'm smarter than the fuckers who are winning that game, they have a 30-year head start on account of being born ruthless assholes, whereas I'd have to learn it. I'm willing to let those assholes have their private jets. Enjoy. What I can't stand for, and never will, is being made to do mediocre work. If you're going to get $2 million out of me each year and pay me only 10% of what I deliver, then fine. We'll do it that way. I won't stand to be assigned mediocre work that is essentially evaluative. If you don't trust me already to do great work from the first day, then I don't trust or like you so get the fuck out of my way.
- jwhitlark 13y ago
  I had a financial fraud investigation professor who always said that getting rich was easy if that was the only thing you cared about.
im3w1l 13y ago
>>>> founders now have potentially 500 possible investors >>This speaks directly to the OP's central point of "legibility". The process is open, anybody can participate. You don't need secret knowledge or connections to do these deals; all you need is a worthy pitch or money to come to the table. 500 investors, means that the Investors become interchangeable. The investors become legible.