4 ms·

This would be accurate if time were going backwards. The world it describes is how things were in the 90s. For the last two decades, at least, the power of ha

by pg 13y ago

This would be accurate if time were going backwards. The world it describes is how things were in the 90s. For the last two decades, at least, the power of hackers/makers relative to MBAs/smooth talkers has consistently increased, and that trend shows no sign of slowing down.

amarghose 13y ago
> hackers/makers relative to MBAs/smooth talkers I think the article is more referring to Hackers/Makers that are also smooth talkers. Obviously an MBA/Business guy with no technical experience/knowledge is not going to be able to pull off any sort of political entrepreneurship in VC-istan.
- nostrademons 13y ago
  A hacker/maker who is also a smooth talker is always going to do better than one who isn't a smooth talker, though. That's like saying "A person who builds useful stuff but also has an Ivy-League degree will be hired over someone who builds useful stuff but doesn't." Duh, but it doesn't mean that building useful stuff is less useful than having the Ivy-League degree (or being a smooth talker).
- tptacek 13y ago
  I stopped trying to parse this comment just before it gave me an aneurysm as I tried to resolve what "VC-istan" might refer to and how non-tech MBAs had no influence there. VC's fund tons of companies headed by operators with no technical experience (look at some 2012 portfolios to see this). It is eas-ier to get external funding if you're a tech with no company operating experience, but it still not eas-y to do that. So it's probably not "obvious" that MBA/business types have no influence wherever "VC-istan" is. Which is I think a good reason not to start calling it "VC-istan".
  - MisterWebz 13y ago
    The word "VC-istan" has been used a lot in this thread and even elsewhere, I don't understand why you put so much emphasis on not understanding what it means.
    - tptacek 13y ago
      For example: because the commenter upthread doesn't appear to know what it means, since they think that MBAs have no influence there. Because it doesn't mean anything; it's a slippery term, meant to diffract understanding rather than focus it.
eldavido 13y ago
Forget the hacker/maker vs. "business guy" distinction. The article's central claim is the rise of a kind of person adept at playing the political game of VC -- raising a round, and then getting soft-acquihired if their company fails. I, for one, have a hard time believing that every startup M&A transaction adds shareholder value to the acquirer. A more likely narrative, and one the author of the article calls into question, is that the entrepreneur has friends/other back-channels at the acquirer and uses these personal connection to engineer the "acquisition" of their company, at the expense of shareholders.
- pg 13y ago
  I can't say for sure this never happens, but I've never seen an instance of it. A startup is composed of its people. For an acquiring company to take on people they didn't want would be the ultimate sacrifice.
wilfra 13y ago
One must not be an MBA/smooth talker to be neck-deep in SV politics. Here are some companies he was probably referring to (or would be if he studied them closely): Path, Color Labs, Quora, Asana, Airtime and Foursquare. I'd cry if two of those services went away but I'd be lying if I didn't acknowledge they are cogs in the machine this article was describing. TechCrunch is the elephant in the room. Basically any startup that is successful at getting frequent TC coverage could be accused of playing the politics game. However whether they are using TC to reinforce their safety net or using it grow their company (or both) is open to interpretation.
- pg 13y ago
  Back in the 90s, most of those would have been among the more earnest, nerdy startups being funded.
- reaclmbs 13y ago
  > Basically any startup that is successful at getting frequent TC coverage could be accused of playing the politics game WTF are you talking about? Getting into techcrunch is as simple as writing a check to a PR firm.
ucee054 13y ago
Yes but it's nowhere near good enough and only improving slowly.

by pg 13y ago

amarghose 13y ago

> hackers/makers relative to MBAs/smooth talkers I think the article is more referring to Hackers/Makers that are also smooth talkers. Obviously an MBA/Business guy with no technical experience/knowledge is not going to be able to pull off any sort of political entrepreneurship in VC-istan.

nostrademons 13y ago
A hacker/maker who is also a smooth talker is always going to do better than one who isn't a smooth talker, though. That's like saying "A person who builds useful stuff but also has an Ivy-League degree will be hired over someone who builds useful stuff but doesn't." Duh, but it doesn't mean that building useful stuff is less useful than having the Ivy-League degree (or being a smooth talker).
tptacek 13y ago
I stopped trying to parse this comment just before it gave me an aneurysm as I tried to resolve what "VC-istan" might refer to and how non-tech MBAs had no influence there. VC's fund tons of companies headed by operators with no technical experience (look at some 2012 portfolios to see this). It is eas-ier to get external funding if you're a tech with no company operating experience, but it still not eas-y to do that. So it's probably not "obvious" that MBA/business types have no influence wherever "VC-istan" is. Which is I think a good reason not to start calling it "VC-istan".
- MisterWebz 13y ago
  The word "VC-istan" has been used a lot in this thread and even elsewhere, I don't understand why you put so much emphasis on not understanding what it means.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    For example: because the commenter upthread doesn't appear to know what it means, since they think that MBAs have no influence there. Because it doesn't mean anything; it's a slippery term, meant to diffract understanding rather than focus it.

eldavido 13y ago

Forget the hacker/maker vs. "business guy" distinction. The article's central claim is the rise of a kind of person adept at playing the political game of VC -- raising a round, and then getting soft-acquihired if their company fails. I, for one, have a hard time believing that every startup M&A transaction adds shareholder value to the acquirer. A more likely narrative, and one the author of the article calls into question, is that the entrepreneur has friends/other back-channels at the acquirer and uses these personal connection to engineer the "acquisition" of their company, at the expense of shareholders.

pg 13y ago
I can't say for sure this never happens, but I've never seen an instance of it. A startup is composed of its people. For an acquiring company to take on people they didn't want would be the ultimate sacrifice.

wilfra 13y ago

One must not be an MBA/smooth talker to be neck-deep in SV politics. Here are some companies he was probably referring to (or would be if he studied them closely): Path, Color Labs, Quora, Asana, Airtime and Foursquare. I'd cry if two of those services went away but I'd be lying if I didn't acknowledge they are cogs in the machine this article was describing. TechCrunch is the elephant in the room. Basically any startup that is successful at getting frequent TC coverage could be accused of playing the politics game. However whether they are using TC to reinforce their safety net or using it grow their company (or both) is open to interpretation.

pg 13y ago
Back in the 90s, most of those would have been among the more earnest, nerdy startups being funded.
reaclmbs 13y ago
> Basically any startup that is successful at getting frequent TC coverage could be accused of playing the politics game WTF are you talking about? Getting into techcrunch is as simple as writing a check to a PR firm.

ucee054 13y ago

Yes but it's nowhere near good enough and only improving slowly.