I also found it strange that Mint sold so soon for so little, relative to what they would surely have grown into (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=821888 htt

I also found it strange that Mint sold so soon for so little, relative to what they would surely have grown into (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=821888 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=821888). But something bothers me about the current critique. The most common argument (by far!) that I've heard against VC funding is that VCs only care about home runs, so their interests aren't aligned with the founders', they don't care if 9/10 of their portfolio companies die, and so on. But here the criticism is just the opposite: the "VC-induced cancer that’s infecting our industry and killing off the next generation" is that VCs don't want home runs, they want early exits. Both criticisms can't be right. So, are there two distinct and incompatible schools of thought about why VCs suck? Or are there just a lot of people who are against VCs no matter what, for whatever reason is handy? My spidey sense is that there's a little of the latter at work. (FWIW, I don't have an opinion for or against VC funding in general.)