3 ms·
Overall a good article that brings up many great points. I find her first requirement of Substantial work history on a large well known product or hundreds of t
by nolanbrown23 19y ago
Overall a good article that brings up many great points. I find her first requirement of Substantial work history on a large well known product or hundreds of thousands of users or a PhD to be kind of ridiculous. She's saying in order to do a VC-backed company you need to have already "made it" in some way. That toiling in obscurity doesn't "qualify" you for running a company. I find that to be a load of bullshit. In a perfect world, in perfect cicumstances, everything will go perfect. Since this isn't perfect world, in the end only two things really matter; can you build it and are you smart enough to make it survive.
- nostrademons 19y agoThat part is basically true - to a VC, a person with "substantial industry experience" means an ex-founder or key employee that has already taken a company to tens of millions in revenue. That doesn't mean that only rich founders can start new successful companies (if it did, it'd disqualify Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, HP, etc). It means that you'll have a really difficult time getting VC funding if you don't have that track record, unless you demonstrate some other factor, like massive traffic or stellar recommendations from a founder who does meet those qualifications.
- gigamon 19y agoI agree. I found her article pretty spot on. Keep in mind that she starts the article by focusing on those whose financial plan is to get VC money from the get-go. I wrote about my own experience with VC's and I basically said the same. It is very difficult to get VC money unless you have a track record. --Denny-- Denny K Miu http://startupforless.com http://startupforless.com