Content
@
0 reply
1 recast
1 reaction
Manuel
@manuelmaccou.eth
The primary narrative I’ve heard and experienced first hand is that VCs have too much influence on the decisions the founders make. And often those decisions are made with the goal of short term gains vs long term prosperity. Meaning the interests of the founder take a back seat to the interests of the VC and their investment. This narrative is a major deterrent for founders who want to build a lasting enterprise, and may cause them to enter a relationship with VCs with reluctance instead of positivity, which could cause a self-fulfilling prophecy of failure. Especially when VC money is a requirement for their type of business. For those with real experience, do you think this narrative is accurate? What examples are there where the opposite is true? Where founders fully drive the company. Any other general thoughts on the matter?
3 replies
1 recast
4 reactions
Sam (crazy candle person) ✦
@samantha
I think most founders fail cuz of the top 10 reasons and startup suicide not from the pressure of VCs. It definitely can contribute to it but it’s not *the* reason
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Ben 🟪
@benersing
I'm not saying all VCs are free from blame, but I imagine there’s selection bias in the quality of founders who: (a) partner with investors that genuinely deserve to be badmouthed, and (b) get themselves into a position where they’re looking for someone to blame.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Metaphorical Leo
@hyp
I read a book called Early Exits a while back that extolled the virtues of steering clear of VC money, has stuck with me ever since. The reality is that VCs do expect returns in short order and an exit in 5-10. They have responsibilities to their fund. The lesson for me is don't take VC money until a) you have solid revenue and can ideally be cash flow positive (aka you don't need the money) and b) are in the position to lock a large market position fast and need to do so fast before market matures.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
