4 ms·

"VC-istan" doesn't give a shit about you or me, correct. This is not some paranoid Conspiracy (capital-C) theory. Those capital-C conspiracy theories are like

"VC-istan" doesn't give a shit about you or me, correct. This is not some paranoid Conspiracy (capital-C) theory. Those capital-C conspiracy theories are like gods in that they are excuses to look no further. (Why does "the Illuminati" conspire toward evil? Because they're evil! It's a devil archetype.) They almost never exist, and don't hold together for long. The reality is that people act according to their own interests. If we can figure out what those interests are, we can learn things. You learn the most if you assume that conspiracies and weird personal vendettas, prima facie, don't exist. Paul Graham, for example, probably doesn't care about either of us either. However, he does have a need to appease VC-istan (which is not quite a conspiracy, but has shown aggressively and illegally collusive behavior in the past). If he wants access to the best talent, he needs to be able to place. The fact that someone is pressuring him or one of his moderators to suppress the ideas of someone fairly powerless tells us something-- that VC-istan believes its reputation (the asset that enables it to get top talent cheaply) is in peril.

tptacek 13y ago
I suspect it's the opposite, and that venture capitalists are a lot more worried about having to appease Paul Graham than the other way around, because of YC's position in the deal flow. I have anecdotal evidence that strongly corroborates that assertion, but you'll just have to take my word for it. Given the notion that Paul Graham is not in fact worried about people on HN offending the delicate sensitivities of VC firm partners, your entire argument falls apart, and nothing you've experienced on HN has anything to do with you being a thorn in the side of any "-stan", potential or otherwise. Incidentally, your continued and ritualized use of the term "VC-istan" harms your arguments, because it's a term that can mean whatever you want it to in any given situation. Is YC part of "VC-istan"? Who knows! It depends on where you want to be in an debate. Anyone who's been on more than a couple message board debates sees that problem coming and discounts your credibility to price that risk in. It's one thing to use a term like "VC-istan" (I prefer "startuplandia"; Maciej Ceglowski seems to like "flounders") as a way of poking fun at startup culture. But that's not how you use the term. You write as if "VC-istan" is something real. You didn't answer my question, by the way. I'm easy to find privately if you're not comfortable answering here. Or talk to anyone else. Just make sure you're talking to someone if you need to be.
- michaelochurch 13y ago
  Venture capitalists do not fear Paul Graham. He may be the godfather of Y Combinator, but people at Sequoia are involved in far bigger deals all the time. If you want to know what VC-istan is, start here: http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/10/07/vc-istan-1-what-is-vc-istan/ http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/10/07/vc-istan-1-wh... VC-istan does not mean "whatever you want it to in any given situation".
  - tptacek 13y ago
    None of these people "fear" any of these people, but if you correct for the words I actually used, I stand by my previous assertion and believe you're simply wrong. It's pretty straightforward to work out what YC has that VCs need, and how little VCs have that YC needs. Once again, we're having this pointless conversation because you argued upthread that Paul Graham is so terrified of venture capitalists that he represses you on Hacker News to appease them, so angry are they at your mean comments about them.
    - michaelochurch 13y ago
      It's pretty straightforward to work out what YC has that VCs need, and how little VCs have that YC needs. Once again, we're having this pointless conversation because you argued upthread that Paul Graham is so terrified of venture capitalists that he represses you on Hacker News to appease them, so angry are they at your mean comments about them. If Y Combinator can't place, it stops being the destination incubator with its pick of emerging startups. It loses the top talent and the brand. Yes, VCs would rather get along with Paul Graham than not, but the real power is with the VCs. If they stop funding YC startups and YC can't place, then it becomes just another crappy incubator. Paul Graham needs the VCs a lot more than they need him. YC's only advantage is that it seems to get a disproportionate share of highly talented founders. However, VCs don't need more talent-- there's an ocean of untapped talent out there-- but everyone in VC-istan needs funding to play. Money is the scarce resource, not talent. I respect what Paul Graham has achieved, or at least that he has achieved it. I prefer revolution over incremental improvement, but PG has succeeded on his own terms. However, don't kid yourself. If the VCs stop placing YC startups, he and Y Combinator are nothing in the Valley. If the leading VCs tell him to put the kibosh on inconvenient truths, he has no other choice.

tptacek 13y ago

I suspect it's the opposite, and that venture capitalists are a lot more worried about having to appease Paul Graham than the other way around, because of YC's position in the deal flow. I have anecdotal evidence that strongly corroborates that assertion, but you'll just have to take my word for it. Given the notion that Paul Graham is not in fact worried about people on HN offending the delicate sensitivities of VC firm partners, your entire argument falls apart, and nothing you've experienced on HN has anything to do with you being a thorn in the side of any "-stan", potential or otherwise. Incidentally, your continued and ritualized use of the term "VC-istan" harms your arguments, because it's a term that can mean whatever you want it to in any given situation. Is YC part of "VC-istan"? Who knows! It depends on where you want to be in an debate. Anyone who's been on more than a couple message board debates sees that problem coming and discounts your credibility to price that risk in. It's one thing to use a term like "VC-istan" (I prefer "startuplandia"; Maciej Ceglowski seems to like "flounders") as a way of poking fun at startup culture. But that's not how you use the term. You write as if "VC-istan" is something real. You didn't answer my question, by the way. I'm easy to find privately if you're not comfortable answering here. Or talk to anyone else. Just make sure you're talking to someone if you need to be.

michaelochurch 13y ago
Venture capitalists do not fear Paul Graham. He may be the godfather of Y Combinator, but people at Sequoia are involved in far bigger deals all the time. If you want to know what VC-istan is, start here: http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/10/07/vc-istan-1-what-is-vc-istan/ http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/10/07/vc-istan-1-wh... VC-istan does not mean "whatever you want it to in any given situation".
- tptacek 13y ago
  None of these people "fear" any of these people, but if you correct for the words I actually used, I stand by my previous assertion and believe you're simply wrong. It's pretty straightforward to work out what YC has that VCs need, and how little VCs have that YC needs. Once again, we're having this pointless conversation because you argued upthread that Paul Graham is so terrified of venture capitalists that he represses you on Hacker News to appease them, so angry are they at your mean comments about them.
  - michaelochurch 13y ago
    It's pretty straightforward to work out what YC has that VCs need, and how little VCs have that YC needs. Once again, we're having this pointless conversation because you argued upthread that Paul Graham is so terrified of venture capitalists that he represses you on Hacker News to appease them, so angry are they at your mean comments about them. If Y Combinator can't place, it stops being the destination incubator with its pick of emerging startups. It loses the top talent and the brand. Yes, VCs would rather get along with Paul Graham than not, but the real power is with the VCs. If they stop funding YC startups and YC can't place, then it becomes just another crappy incubator. Paul Graham needs the VCs a lot more than they need him. YC's only advantage is that it seems to get a disproportionate share of highly talented founders. However, VCs don't need more talent-- there's an ocean of untapped talent out there-- but everyone in VC-istan needs funding to play. Money is the scarce resource, not talent. I respect what Paul Graham has achieved, or at least that he has achieved it. I prefer revolution over incremental improvement, but PG has succeeded on his own terms. However, don't kid yourself. If the VCs stop placing YC startups, he and Y Combinator are nothing in the Valley. If the leading VCs tell him to put the kibosh on inconvenient truths, he has no other choice.