Fundraising Mistakes Founders Make • Hacker News Board

Re: Fundraising Mistakes Founders Make

#51

Post by michaelochurch » Fri, Feb 21, 2014, 1:58 PM UTC

chollida1 wrote: post #13

I don't know Sam, but I really like this experiment he's doing with writing. Lot's of decent articles being written a a high speed. It's almost like he's trying to replicate Paul Graham circa 2004- 2008. I haven't seen an article yet that breaks any new ground, ie he's still looking for his "blub paradox" article, but all his articles generate discussion. Just look at his article on AI from yesterday. It didn't reall…

I like most of what SA has to say, but I think PG is coaching him in response to, well, me.

I saw this Quora comment last night and it reaffirmed my suspicion: http://www.quora.com/Hacker-News/Why-does-Paul-Graham-have-a...

People respond more to anecdotes than hard data. PG did, as the Quora comment mentions, give the world an anecdote of a good guy winning. After 2001, there was a huge morale crisis (because of the same ills as what we see now-- unqualified idiots raising huge sums of money, carpetbaggers from finance swooping in and calling all the shots) in the Valley, and it took Paul Graham to raise the banner and reconvince people that what was happening out there was right.

A "good guy winning" story, in a society on the cusp of awareness of its own corruption-- that is, facing a morale crisis-- can be really powerful in bringing back hope. However, for each PG, there are lots of good guys who lose at that game, but I'm one of the few who spoke out and called it for what it was. Most people value their own success more. I value truth. I don't want anyone else to fall into the career-damaging trap of the VC-funded startup game. It's just not for our generation.

With PG's account and my account, the impression that all this makes is that, yes, 15 years ago (PG's time) the Valley may have been a meritocracy, but now (for my generation) it's just another corporate ladder-- and an inferior one to that of finance.

In order to prop up faith in the Valley's claims of meritocracy, PG needs a "good guy winning" from our generation, and someone who can write well and see the big picture. He needs that person badly, and I think Sam Altman is really good in the role.

Re: Fundraising Mistakes Founders Make

#52

Post by devfeed » Fri, Feb 21, 2014, 3:22 PM UTC

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #25

chollida1 wrote: post #13

I don't know Sam, but I really like this experiment he's doing with writing. Lot's of decent articles being written a a high speed. It's almost like he's trying to replicate Paul Graham circa 2004- 2008. I haven't seen an article yet that breaks any new ground, ie he's still looking for his "blub paradox" article, but all his articles generate discussion. Just look at his article on AI from yesterday. It didn't reall…

Except unlike PG, he hasn't really established authority on what he is writing about (other than perhaps a confusing endorsement from PG). What are Sam's big hits? Edit: That sounds meaner than intended, but it's actually an honest question. How does this guy share a top 5 list spot with Jobs, Larry, and Sergey? How do we know we should take him at his word when he didn't learn these things be being successful doing…

But PG wasn't an established authority back when PG was writing fast. I remember reading PG in 2006, and you'd read lots of snarks on the tech forums of the time (Slashdot, Digg): who is this guy, and why should we listen to this bored washed up multi-millionaire who sold his startup to Yahoo? He hasn't done anything of note in the past 10 years! (They said the same thing about Philip Greenspun too, who was also writing at a faster clip back then).

Look, at the end of the day, "established authority" is only loosely correlated with worthwhile meaning. At some point you're going to have to move past the author and evaluate the words on the page on their own merit.

Re: Fundraising Mistakes Founders Make

#53

Post by wh-uws » Fri, Feb 21, 2014, 11:31 PM UTC

tlogan wrote: post #40

This is great but I will offer a simplistic view how to raise money. First, you need to get "social proof". Getting accepted into Y-combinator is a very good one. Or if you already sold a company then you are golden. But if you are super smart working in large tech company such as Yahoo! for 15+ years - good luck. Especially if you are over 40. When you are 40 it is easier to convince Discovery Loan to give you 100K…

If you worked at large tech company for that long and didn't make enough connections, learn enough, and/or save enough money to start a startup on your own...

I wouldn't invest in you either

Re: Fundraising Mistakes Founders Make

#54

Post by lawnchair_larry » Sat, Feb 22, 2014, 6:15 AM UTC

devfeed wrote: post #52

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except unlike PG, he hasn't really established authority on what he is writing about (other than perhaps a confusing endorsement from PG). What are Sam's big hits? Edit: That sounds meaner than intended, but it's actually an honest question. How does this guy share a top 5 list spot with Jobs, Larry, and Sergey? How do we know we should take him at his word when he didn't learn these things be being successful doing…

But PG wasn't an established authority back when PG was writing fast. I remember reading PG in 2006, and you'd read lots of snarks on the tech forums of the time (Slashdot, Digg): who is this guy, and why should we listen to this bored washed up multi-millionaire who sold his startup to Yahoo? He hasn't done anything of note in the past 10 years! (They said the same thing about Philip Greenspun too, who was also writ…

> At some point you're going to have to move past the author and evaluate the words on the page on their own merit.

For this type of writing, you can't. You don't have the experience or the data to judge anything. That's just how expert advice works. It's not falsifiable to anyone that would be learning from it, so that's why the credentials are important.