151–160 of 431 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In 2013, the Ponzi scheme of VC investing still existed. The VCs could pawn off their money losing companies to the public market, sell their equity fast and watch the stock either quickly decline or stay flat. The public got wise.
Economic cycles. As soon as the next cycle builds up momentum all the low risk entrepreneurs will rush in again.
> What's changed? Largely, the make up of the audience in HN. I sincerely doubt that the hard core of people doing startups, thinking of doing a startup, or just very interested in the topic has gone away or changed attitude very much. But the profile of HN has grown. It's a miracle that it's still an interesting and curious group, but from comments I'd be astounded if there were not a far greater proportion of peopl…
I am here for the selection of interesting articles and the high quality comments when it's not a political thread (those threads have less rational lower quality comments and I am also guilty of producing some os them, I apologize dang).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you believe that, you're effectively believing that a runaway system of feedback loops is right by definition. But that's basically just a religion that worships a non-personified deity.
You can tell that to the free market faithful. I was merely pointing out that saying the market 'just works' instead of it 'working as intended' logically doesn't add anything, because in the free market concept it is meant to to "just work", which implies that is what it is intended to do.
A truly free market just degenerates into the "natural state" in which non-social animals live. There is, nor there ever will be, a truly free market in a human society. The only intentional thing, the only thing we can discuss whether it "works as intended" or not, is the boundaries (cultural and regulatory) we set around the market. It's the only thing we control (sort of - the same feedback loops that form the market also affect our attempts at regulating it).
For HN case, initial cohort either become too busy with life and success and left forum or become jaded and skeptical about startups by experiencing it by themselves. The second group is still very active here, driving a lot of sentiment in discussion. HN also changed audience to be more general techy forum that startup forum. There are more people that want to discuss politics instead of technology (see deepseek, UK hardware talent to AMA with Peter Roberts). Any post about hiring is full of people whining about leetscode. Posts about process are full of agile haters. Even product lunches are full of open-source zealots, discussion of unrelated stuff like rust or useless feedback about website working slowing on 10 years old android phone with JS disabled. There is very little content for aspiring founders.
Finally, there is value in HN for discovery, just not for startup. You can learn more about startup/VC from Y Combinator YouTube channel, Saastr or even Harry Stebbings podcast.
I think the bigger issue is that most of the financial upsides of startups were illusory Unless you're a founder, you're unlikely to make any money, and predatory VC/backers using convertibles/senior debt to turn your equity into Zimbabwean dollars. Thats before any stats are calculated for lasting long enough to either IPO, make money or get bought out. As someone who did successfully exit, the stories of multiple-m…
> The only realy reason to join a startup is that you either believe in the "mission" or that you believe it will bring you joy to work in that way. Or the startup was a stepping stone in your career. Big Tech wouldn't hire you, b/c you have a different background, so you work at a startup to develop experience and then switch to Big Tech.
I'd say starting a company to make something people want in order to sell it for money is still relevant. It's just that you're looking at working quietly, humbly, but perseverantly for the next 25 years, slowly growing the business and balancing the risks and opportunities along the way. You won't be looking for an "exit" because you want to take care of the company you built. That's a very different story from what…
In my view, startups always involve rapid growth and VC money to achieve it. If the company doesn't meet that criteria, isn't that simply a regular business?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's a question: what's the list of startups fitting the criteria of - after 2008 Great Financial Crisis - actual startup, not spinoff from larger company - financially successful exit - early non-founder employees made a substantial amount of money?
GPT: whatsapp, instagram, airbnb, slack, uber, snap
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's a question: what's the list of startups fitting the criteria of - after 2008 Great Financial Crisis - actual startup, not spinoff from larger company - financially successful exit - early non-founder employees made a substantial amount of money?
Why the after 2008 foundatuon criteria. Someone who joined FB in 2010 could have got rich right? Same with Google, Amazon, most other unicorns that established before 2008.
(Not lost in all this: over the years the tax treatment of option grants has changed! It used to be a hugely advantageous way of giving employees something of value, and that's been eroded a lot.)
Furthermore, according to statistics, 1 out of 10 startups succeed on average or 90% startups fail within the first 10 years of launch.
So, we can say that startup is actually a winter game from the beginning.