O(n) vs. O(n^2) Startups
rohan.ga
O(n) vs. O(n^2) Startups
1–10 of 92 posts
Re: O(n) vs. O(n^2) Startups
#2An O(n) startup grows
If it grows at O(n) it is not a startup in the way "startup" is used in Silicon Valley. It is just an ordinary new business.
It's worth noting that starting an ordinary new business is hard. Probably as hard as starting a startup for anyone who has not started a new business a few times before. And maybe harder because most new businesses are undercapitalized and therefore likely to suck up personal capital while startups get to use other people's money.
Re: O(n) vs. O(n^2) Startups
#3An O(n) startup grows If it grows at O(n) it is not a startup in the way "startup" is used in Silicon Valley. It is just an ordinary new business. It's worth noting that starting an ordinary new business is hard. Probably as hard as starting a startup for anyone who has not started a new business a few times before. And maybe harder because most new businesses are undercapitalized and therefore likely to suck up pers…
I use business, startup, and company interchangeably. Generally I tried to use business for O(n), startup for O(n^2), but I guess I wasn't strict with my usage...
Perhaps they are harder to start, but they are also vastly more likely to succeed to their O(n^2), and this is not only due to the increased barrier to entry.
That's what I mean when I say, founders are more likely to succeed at O(n) companies.
Re: O(n) vs. O(n^2) Startups
#4An O(n) startup grows If it grows at O(n) it is not a startup in the way "startup" is used in Silicon Valley. It is just an ordinary new business. It's worth noting that starting an ordinary new business is hard. Probably as hard as starting a startup for anyone who has not started a new business a few times before. And maybe harder because most new businesses are undercapitalized and therefore likely to suck up pers…
I use business, startup, and company interchangeably. Generally I tried to use business for O(n), startup for O(n^2), but I guess I wasn't strict with my usage... Perhaps they are harder to start, but they are also vastly more likely to succeed to their O(n^2), and this is not only due to the increased barrier to entry. That's what I mean when I say, founders are more likely to succeed at O(n) companies.
Most businesses are playing pinball…success this month/year means you can play again next month/year.
Very few have successful exits where the owner walks away with life changing money and no obligation.
Re: O(n) vs. O(n^2) Startups
#5Related: Black Swan Farming (2012)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4497461
https://paulgraham.com/swan.html
It is interesting that YC started as being more Founder friendly ... and I guess "Founder's Fund" did too
But there is still some divergence in interests ... i.e. if you have to make a choice between a safer O(n) path and a riskier O(n^2) path, then the investor prefers the riskier path
Or I'd be very interested in an argument that they don't
Re: O(n) vs. O(n^2) Startups
#6Don’t forget about us O(1) solo entrepreneurs!
Re: O(n) vs. O(n^2) Startups
#7> O(n) companies can’t afford to hire the absolute best talent.
O(n) companies tend to have more experienced founders and engineers in my experience. This is partly why they have "nice deadlines, clear SoW" and "understand their customers" enough to have PMF. The strength of their talent, experience and job networks often greatly outweighs the cash incentives, allowing them to hire top candidates. They do not just hire "to fit a job description" because, since money was tighter, they are super conservative about hiring, have always done the job they are hiring for themselves for a long time, and know exactly what they need. It is the O(n^2) companies that hire for job descriptions that fit the positions the VCs tell them they need. I think your experiential datapoints may be too sparse.
Re: O(n) vs. O(n^2) Startups
#8[deleted]
Re: O(n) vs. O(n^2) Startups
#9> O(n) companies can’t afford to hire the absolute best talent. O(n) companies tend to have more experienced founders and engineers in my experience. This is partly why they have "nice deadlines, clear SoW" and "understand their customers" enough to have PMF. The strength of their talent, experience and job networks often greatly outweighs the cash incentives, allowing them to hire top candidates. They do not just hi…
And also, engineers who are sick of the stupidity that comes from having too much VC money and not enough wisdom to use it.
Re: O(n) vs. O(n^2) Startups
#10Don’t forget about us O(1) solo entrepreneurs!
Still O(n).