Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“Yes” means “no”: The language of VCs

jacobbartlett.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 217 posts

Re: “Yes” means “no”: The language of VCs

#181

Post by blitzar »

featuregag wrote: post #66
a1371 wrote: post #62

I played the VC game. We were attending every opportunity to give 10% of our business for $200K. No one would bite. Gradually, it felt it was easier to land customers than VCs. Then there came a moment that I wish for every founder. Our revenues started not only paying the bills, but also fueling growth. It felt as if a veil was lifted from my eyes. Now, it feels like all those pitches were a waste of time.

And if you make your success public enough in the right circles? Those same VCs will be throwing their panties at you. It’s the game.

“I LOVE THIS FOUNDER" ... "I am a 10 out of 10"

Re: “Yes” means “no”: The language of VCs

#182

Post by blitzar »

davedx wrote: post #167
threeseed wrote: post #65

Have actually read a few founders now who had no connections and just treated VCs as sales targets: 3000+ investor cold emails, 100+ meetings, 3 term sheets, 1 deal. Reading this it makes me wonder if this isn't the best strategy.

Sounds like a huge waste of time

Sounds like 6 months in a regular cubicle job.

Re: “Yes” means “no”: The language of VCs

#183

Post by muzani »

Aurornis wrote: post #114
lisper wrote: post #3

It's not so much that "yes" means "no" but that VC's never actually say no, and it's easy to understand why. Whether or not they actually fund you, they always want you to think that they are going to fund you because that way they hedge their bets in two ways. First, if they learn new information (like if you suddenly start to get traction) they can change their minds without losing face. Second, and more importantl…

Top tier VCs will definitely tell you “no” and they’ll often get there quickly. It’s more often the small funds, the inexperienced family offices, and the junior associates that don’t have authority who string companies along forever. They don’t have as much authority or funds to actually work with, so they have a lot of time to string you along. Lumping all VCs together really doesn’t lead to accurate descriptions o…

People get pissed at entities that act irrationally, but the really good entities rarely act irrationally, and have a feedback loop to attempt to act as rational as possible.

But the people who are in the bottom 80% tend to match with others in the bottom 80% as well. And so this kind of story resonates well, to the tune of 200+ upvotes.

Not criticizing anyone, but it's a trap that people fall into, both founders and VCs, employees and employers. Where the perception of these entities is biased by inexperience.

Re: “Yes” means “no”: The language of VCs

#184

Post by [deleted] »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #110
terminous wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the SV VC business model isn't to build a traditional profitable business that beats the competition by providing a superior product/service for a competitive price. It is to dominate the competition by subsidizing the real cost to consumers, until you have taken over the market and can raise the price and lower the quality of the product/service. Edit: Or the business model is to be acquired by a FAANG who f…

Does that even work as an investment model? The poster child for this has got to be Uber, and they've shown that this is a lot harder to achieve than it appears. The huge wins have all been IPOs where the business is still growing/trying to dominate the market, and not where they're in that monetisation phase. At least that's what I've seen. I don't think there's a single case yet where the "dominate and then monopol…

[deleted]

Re: “Yes” means “no”: The language of VCs

#185

Post by jakey_bakey »

Aeglaecia wrote: post #60
jakey_bakey wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I kinda feel for the people who are desparate to be the big cheese rather than have their own thing that's sustainable

wonder how they would feel squashing your business in the same industry

It's the only thing that makes them feel something

Re: “Yes” means “no”: The language of VCs

#186

Post by jakey_bakey »

davecheney wrote: post #123

Two things: 1. Nobody is entitled to venture capitalist funding. It is not an oddly named and run social works program. 2. VC funding is not a home run. It is not free money. If the only way you can launch a tech business is venture funding with the hope of hitting it out of the park before the funds’ cliff, perhaps consider if the return justifies the effort.

Hey, if the company's equity goes to zero then it was free money!

Re: “Yes” means “no”: The language of VCs

#187

Post by [deleted] »

thwarted wrote: post #56

For our two-sided marketplace startup, this meant Android and iOS apps for customers, and another pair of apps for mechanics. 6 months later, we released our fully-fledged MVP to a deafening silence from customers, mechanics, and investors. It's probably really hard to get traction when it's not obvious who your customers are, and this description reveals that. Your customers are the entities that are paying you. Is…

[deleted]

Re: “Yes” means “no”: The language of VCs

#189

Post by conartist6 »

jakey_bakey wrote: post #151
conartist6 wrote: post #79

Your title is one of those things that reminds me why our industry is so short of women

Wait, really? Please explain this Also, the actual title or the one HN moderated it to?

I understand it to be wordplay on "no means no", a well-known anti-rape slogan. In repurposing the lingo to be a statement about venture capitalism, there is a lack of respect for the need for such a slogan.

I think men a tendency to trivialize that message because it scares us a bit. It's a message of rejection and shame so it's uncomfortable and we naturally to want to twist it around until it isn't threatening anymore.

Re: “Yes” means “no”: The language of VCs

#190

Post by StreetChief »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #110
terminous wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the SV VC business model isn't to build a traditional profitable business that beats the competition by providing a superior product/service for a competitive price. It is to dominate the competition by subsidizing the real cost to consumers, until you have taken over the market and can raise the price and lower the quality of the product/service. Edit: Or the business model is to be acquired by a FAANG who f…

Does that even work as an investment model? The poster child for this has got to be Uber, and they've shown that this is a lot harder to achieve than it appears. The huge wins have all been IPOs where the business is still growing/trying to dominate the market, and not where they're in that monetisation phase. At least that's what I've seen. I don't think there's a single case yet where the "dominate and then monopol…

It works for management and executives, that's who it works for.
Post reply on HN