It mostly works for the founders with the right geography, colleges, and/or employment experience in fancy unicorns. The other 99.99% of the founders can't feel this gold rush. At all :)
The biggest reason is poor deal sourcing techniques ( hardly any science and only network) leading to the same network, same deals and an artificial access based competition. VC deal sourcing is the most unscientific procurement. The gloating over warm introductions makes the VC central and not the deal, idea or founder and therefore not the asset class. As a founder, I find the underlying assumptions difficult to comprehend logically.
Your piece makes the assumption that VCs have something of value to offer other than money. The reality is that there is only one thing that is beneficial to founders: avoiding dilution.
In reality seed stage is a shark fest of fools on the lookout for cheap equity. There are literally THOUSANDS of idiotic VCs congratulating themselves for 'getting in early'. When they do NOTHING I mean NOTHING for founders.
Also there is a strange kind of bro-socialism around VCs where they think their *brand* means they are somehow 'good people' and that founders inexplicably should only care about values, not money. Seed investors invest in seed because they buy low and sell high. Their motives are entirely money-based and yet they expect founders to look the other way when another investor offers them MORE MONEY AKA LESS DILUTION.
VCs are mad because founders have caught up to their fake do-gooder marketing BS.
VCs have zero morals I don't care what firm you work for. Why? Because not one of them will refuse to do business with neo Nazi Peter Thiel. They literally DO NOT CARE if you are a Nazi they will still do business with you so there is no world where VCs can claim sanctimonious morality above founders. In a world without values, everything is transactional.
Also next time you ask what is good for founders, consider asking FOUNDERS, not VCs what they think is best for them.
It mostly works for the founders with the right geography, colleges, and/or employment experience in fancy unicorns. The other 99.99% of the founders can't feel this gold rush. At all :)
The biggest reason is poor deal sourcing techniques ( hardly any science and only network) leading to the same network, same deals and an artificial access based competition. VC deal sourcing is the most unscientific procurement. The gloating over warm introductions makes the VC central and not the deal, idea or founder and therefore not the asset class. As a founder, I find the underlying assumptions difficult to comprehend logically.
Your piece makes the assumption that VCs have something of value to offer other than money. The reality is that there is only one thing that is beneficial to founders: avoiding dilution.
In reality seed stage is a shark fest of fools on the lookout for cheap equity. There are literally THOUSANDS of idiotic VCs congratulating themselves for 'getting in early'. When they do NOTHING I mean NOTHING for founders.
Also there is a strange kind of bro-socialism around VCs where they think their *brand* means they are somehow 'good people' and that founders inexplicably should only care about values, not money. Seed investors invest in seed because they buy low and sell high. Their motives are entirely money-based and yet they expect founders to look the other way when another investor offers them MORE MONEY AKA LESS DILUTION.
VCs are mad because founders have caught up to their fake do-gooder marketing BS.
VCs have zero morals I don't care what firm you work for. Why? Because not one of them will refuse to do business with neo Nazi Peter Thiel. They literally DO NOT CARE if you are a Nazi they will still do business with you so there is no world where VCs can claim sanctimonious morality above founders. In a world without values, everything is transactional.
Also next time you ask what is good for founders, consider asking FOUNDERS, not VCs what they think is best for them.
Aren't startups also getting traction faster too now compared to the past?