WSJ interview with Paul Graham [video]
online.wsj.com
WSJ interview with Paul Graham [video]
1–10 of 24 posts
Re: WSJ interview with Paul Graham [video]
#2Heh, "no soup for you!"
Re: WSJ interview with Paul Graham [video]
#3How does the "no soup" provision work in legal terms? How do you (pg and co) ensure you don't get diluted in future rounds?
Re: WSJ interview with Paul Graham [video]
#4How does the "no soup" provision work in legal terms? How do you (pg and co) ensure you don't get diluted in future rounds?
We have protections against arbitrary dilution, by e.g. issuing extra stock or doing a new round that values the company at $1. We've never needed them. What I meant by the "no soup" remark was that we don't care that much about legal protections; it is a more powerful deterrent that we would blacklist any VC who screwed us over-- or who screwed over any of the startups.
Re: WSJ interview with Paul Graham [video]
#5How does the "no soup" provision work in legal terms? How do you (pg and co) ensure you don't get diluted in future rounds?
We have protections against arbitrary dilution, by e.g. issuing extra stock or doing a new round that values the company at $1. We've never needed them. What I meant by the "no soup" remark was that we don't care that much about legal protections; it is a more powerful deterrent that we would blacklist any VC who screwed us over-- or who screwed over any of the startups.
That in itself speaks strongly for YC. I'm tempted to make a joke about startup unionization.
Re: WSJ interview with Paul Graham [video]
#6How does the "no soup" provision work in legal terms? How do you (pg and co) ensure you don't get diluted in future rounds?
We have protections against arbitrary dilution, by e.g. issuing extra stock or doing a new round that values the company at $1. We've never needed them. What I meant by the "no soup" remark was that we don't care that much about legal protections; it is a more powerful deterrent that we would blacklist any VC who screwed us over-- or who screwed over any of the startups.
In general, is maintaining a good reputation an adequate incentive for VC firms to avoid abusing founders or angel investors?
Re: WSJ interview with Paul Graham [video]
#7How does the "no soup" provision work in legal terms? How do you (pg and co) ensure you don't get diluted in future rounds?
We have protections against arbitrary dilution, by e.g. issuing extra stock or doing a new round that values the company at $1. We've never needed them. What I meant by the "no soup" remark was that we don't care that much about legal protections; it is a more powerful deterrent that we would blacklist any VC who screwed us over-- or who screwed over any of the startups.
Creating this "repeat player" effect is awesome. Sometimes the best-drafted legal provisions can have loopholes. This kind of leverage makes everything much simpler.
Re: WSJ interview with Paul Graham [video]
#8Awesome: "Judging by the reactions of the investors, the recession seems to be over."
Re: WSJ interview with Paul Graham [video]
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
We have protections against arbitrary dilution, by e.g. issuing extra stock or doing a new round that values the company at $1. We've never needed them. What I meant by the "no soup" remark was that we don't care that much about legal protections; it is a more powerful deterrent that we would blacklist any VC who screwed us over-- or who screwed over any of the startups.
In general, is maintaining a good reputation an adequate incentive for VC firms to avoid abusing founders or angel investors?
Empirically, very much so. Stories of investors maltreating founders are not uncommon in the startup world generally, but they are extremely rare among the YC alumni.
Re: WSJ interview with Paul Graham [video]
#10And to think Paul Graham initially resisted investing. He seems to know this stuff so well it seems natural.