Comment by hitekker | Hacker News Reader

Comment by hitekker | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

One reminder I say to myself when reading stories like this:

It can happen to you.

Dramatic failure, maybe not: but there are plenty of startups out there in that gray zone of "we don't really know what we're doing but we have several redeeming qualities!"

That zone, the upper 10% of "hyped" startups shall we say, are far more deceptive, and therefore dangerous, than the "obvious" bad companies, the bottom 90%. It's easy to laugh at all those investors who got hornswoggled by an out-and-out narcissist. It's less easy when the team is super- smart, the founders super-motivated and the only factors missing just happen to be what separates the 10% from the 1% who are truly successful. It could be product-market fit, work-life balance, or whatever the team needs at the moment. The only way to know is to be super-paranoid[1]

Much like the stuff on /r/subredditdrama or /r/cringe, spectacles of human foibles convey "I'm better than the worst, so I am good." which, for me, translates into a false sense of confidence.

[1] http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/66863.Only_the_Paranoid_S...

Startup business backed by VC is kind of unsound.

The traditional way maybe longer : minimal investment and constant self sustainability, but it seems also better at helping founder adapt to changes in costing and technologies.

When you have 50 customers it is easier to recognize you made a mistake in architecture and change it. While aggressive market spreading with freemium lock you in faster and makes you less agile.

Also you get very soon aware of your real costs.

But, the problem is VC+startup tends to aggressively compete with sound business in a way that has nothing to do with pure merit but often just the capacity to access capital (which according to most studies relate to birth).

I am an hardcore historical liberal, I don't really think that birth is a merit that is leading to a competitive market. Else, most of the leading economical nations would have remained monarchies. I also accept people have the right to live in dignity from their work and do not have to be all entrepreneurs.

I kind of think people misunderstand what liberalism is.

It is the right for people to choose a dignified existence through work with a clear contract of one hour worked has to be paid, and the right if people wishes to be entrepreneurs that have the possibility to access to a truly competitive market based on their merit without distortion.

And like any liberal I think it contributes to prosperity wealth and happiness of the Nations in an efficient way.

> The traditional way maybe longer : minimal investment and constant self sustainability, but it seems also better at helping founder adapt to changes in costing and technologies.

True and that's the approach I'd take but there is a benefit to the other way if you have a product that is a first or is the first to do something well, first mover advantage to grow big fast required a lot of capital (the costs to do that have dropped hugely but are still not trivial).

Some businesses grow best organically and some require a shot in the arm.

If they require a shot in the arm backed by massive investment, I don't think privately owned interest favouring statistically birth over competence is the right way.

It is basically both ploutocratie and major life changing decision who are escaping the control of the people. Hence not driven neither by the interests of Nations nor of the environment.

We are supposed to live in democracy where the people are free to decide to not trigger a massive extinction of species or fuel wars based on biasing the access to oil or cheap enslaved workforce.

I think we have the right to decide our own destiny. But, it is because I am an idealist still believing in the rights of the people, freedom and fair competition.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com