3 ms·

They're not doing it successfully. They could be. They pick advisors who know how to do what they already know how to do, to validate their decisions. That lea

They're not doing it successfully. They could be. They pick advisors who know how to do what they already know how to do, to validate their decisions. That leads to some improvement in the process, but they're not picking people who complement their skill sets. They're picking less shiny versions of themselves.

rdl 13y ago
The funds where I know EIRs and VPs with tech experience don't really fall into that; there are absolutely funds which are horrible and have horrible portfolio execs, eirs, and advisors, but I think if you talk to the really top ones, you'd be surprised by the quality of talent. The weakness is that a lot of funds can't/don't hyper-specialize in specific technology, but for instance there's a VC who has made a lot of security investments who has l0pht people on the team.
- michaelochurch 13y ago
  Are you suggesting that someone like me should become EIR? I've seen the quality of people who get EIR roles. They're not slouches, but I could do better than most of them, and that includes the ones at top firms. I can actually detect things like what kind of programmers your tech stack will attract; non-technical executives are better with general-purpose marketing, but the 10X factor with regard to programming talent is black-magic to them. Even rarer than 10X programmers are people with enough experience and insight to know what brings "10X" into being and what smothers it. It's not just about the people; conditions and configuration play a gigantic role. I've avoided exploring the VC route (as in, becoming one) because I want to keep my technical skills intact. Also, I'd be +5 sigma great at one part of it (evaluating technical choices and judging talent) but I have no idea if I'd be any good at the other (also critical) aspects of the business. I also feel like if I committed full-time to nontechnical stuff, I'd lose that +5 sigma edge. Right now, I know that if you're using Clojure and your competition is setting up the Java/Maven/IDE environment, you'll almost certainly win. I might not be able to pick that sort of thing out, in 20 years, if I step away from using technology on a day-to-day basis. Right now, I could grep a codebase and tell you better than almost anyone out there if a company has the technical mettle it needs. ("Visitor" or "AbstractFactory" = bad, "mapcat" or "flatMap" = good.) I wouldn't have that if I sat out of the technical game for 20 years, because the signs and terms would be different.
  - rdl 13y ago
    Honestly, I think you're too bitter/pessimistic, even if more than sufficiently technically competent, to be an effective EIR (or VC/angel, or founder of a VC-funded company), at least now. But you probably recognize that :) But yes, a less-bitter version of you might be a good EIR, although I think it usually comes from "founder of a company funded by the firm has a midsize exit", not out of the blue. Three of my friends were EIRs, and two are now founders of great companies (although not hardcore tech companies). The other has run off to Spain for a while, after ~15 years of doing startups, for something of a sabbatical. They're all at the "code for days straight", graduated from top engineering programs (in contexts like being in India or ~20 years ago where that mattered, unlike the US today), etc. The whole point of EIR is that it's revolving door -- you do it for a year or two, then go back to startups. It's both a way to take a break, and get exposed to new stuff. You still use some of your tech skills, and often end up working on side projects, so I don't think a year off is going to kill your technical competence. As for the quality of portfolio company review/advice: one top one sent me to do an interview/etc. with probably the best operating executive in the security industry, one of their portfolio companies. I learned a lot, and decided we should hold off on raising as a result (this was ~2 years ago, about a month after I finished YC). Being an actual full-time VC probably does hurt your technical skills, and I don't think having just fairly narrow programming or programming tech skills is a useful background for a VC, although "ability to pick winning teams" is essentially the definition of a successful accelerator or seed stage investor (but, on more axes than just "can program well"). Something a bit broader and maybe less deep is good, although in cleantech having postdoc level expertise might make sense. I think I have more than enough security industry experience to be an effective security vc, but not enough in the programming tools space, and somewhere in the middle on deployment/automation/networking tools. I've talked to VC Principals/Venture Partners who are what I'd consider top-50 domain experts in specific things (payment regulations), and some Partners who are top-500 on networking or certain parts of security. The other thing is it's usually better to have domain expertise in the founding team than implementation perfection, so at seed, a PHP hacked together piece of crap that works is probably fine, as long as what they're doing 1) has a market 2) is possible. At Series A, they should probably have some competence in the team, and after, sure.

rdl 13y ago

The funds where I know EIRs and VPs with tech experience don't really fall into that; there are absolutely funds which are horrible and have horrible portfolio execs, eirs, and advisors, but I think if you talk to the really top ones, you'd be surprised by the quality of talent. The weakness is that a lot of funds can't/don't hyper-specialize in specific technology, but for instance there's a VC who has made a lot of security investments who has l0pht people on the team.

michaelochurch 13y ago
Are you suggesting that someone like me should become EIR? I've seen the quality of people who get EIR roles. They're not slouches, but I could do better than most of them, and that includes the ones at top firms. I can actually detect things like what kind of programmers your tech stack will attract; non-technical executives are better with general-purpose marketing, but the 10X factor with regard to programming talent is black-magic to them. Even rarer than 10X programmers are people with enough experience and insight to know what brings "10X" into being and what smothers it. It's not just about the people; conditions and configuration play a gigantic role. I've avoided exploring the VC route (as in, becoming one) because I want to keep my technical skills intact. Also, I'd be +5 sigma great at one part of it (evaluating technical choices and judging talent) but I have no idea if I'd be any good at the other (also critical) aspects of the business. I also feel like if I committed full-time to nontechnical stuff, I'd lose that +5 sigma edge. Right now, I know that if you're using Clojure and your competition is setting up the Java/Maven/IDE environment, you'll almost certainly win. I might not be able to pick that sort of thing out, in 20 years, if I step away from using technology on a day-to-day basis. Right now, I could grep a codebase and tell you better than almost anyone out there if a company has the technical mettle it needs. ("Visitor" or "AbstractFactory" = bad, "mapcat" or "flatMap" = good.) I wouldn't have that if I sat out of the technical game for 20 years, because the signs and terms would be different.
- rdl 13y ago
  Honestly, I think you're too bitter/pessimistic, even if more than sufficiently technically competent, to be an effective EIR (or VC/angel, or founder of a VC-funded company), at least now. But you probably recognize that :) But yes, a less-bitter version of you might be a good EIR, although I think it usually comes from "founder of a company funded by the firm has a midsize exit", not out of the blue. Three of my friends were EIRs, and two are now founders of great companies (although not hardcore tech companies). The other has run off to Spain for a while, after ~15 years of doing startups, for something of a sabbatical. They're all at the "code for days straight", graduated from top engineering programs (in contexts like being in India or ~20 years ago where that mattered, unlike the US today), etc. The whole point of EIR is that it's revolving door -- you do it for a year or two, then go back to startups. It's both a way to take a break, and get exposed to new stuff. You still use some of your tech skills, and often end up working on side projects, so I don't think a year off is going to kill your technical competence. As for the quality of portfolio company review/advice: one top one sent me to do an interview/etc. with probably the best operating executive in the security industry, one of their portfolio companies. I learned a lot, and decided we should hold off on raising as a result (this was ~2 years ago, about a month after I finished YC). Being an actual full-time VC probably does hurt your technical skills, and I don't think having just fairly narrow programming or programming tech skills is a useful background for a VC, although "ability to pick winning teams" is essentially the definition of a successful accelerator or seed stage investor (but, on more axes than just "can program well"). Something a bit broader and maybe less deep is good, although in cleantech having postdoc level expertise might make sense. I think I have more than enough security industry experience to be an effective security vc, but not enough in the programming tools space, and somewhere in the middle on deployment/automation/networking tools. I've talked to VC Principals/Venture Partners who are what I'd consider top-50 domain experts in specific things (payment regulations), and some Partners who are top-500 on networking or certain parts of security. The other thing is it's usually better to have domain expertise in the founding team than implementation perfection, so at seed, a PHP hacked together piece of crap that works is probably fine, as long as what they're doing 1) has a market 2) is possible. At Series A, they should probably have some competence in the team, and after, sure.