Build a small focused product to generate some revenue, then hopefully that will give you time and financial freedom to build more complex products down the road.
Build a small focused product to generate some revenue, then hopefully that will give you time and financial freedom to build more complex products down the road.
(Also if one can get funding, it lets one get paid an actual salary more quickly.)
IMO having a small team constraint is powerful too, you really have to optimize things otherwise you're screwed. Basically the opposite of a startup, where you'd toss money at the problem while you try and attract more people, making the product increasingly brittle.
A business that you own and which makes you any money on 3 hours a day may be even more rare than a unicorn. In most cases you'll be spending those 3 hours per day on administrative stuff alone.
It's not easy, but there are dozens or hundreds in many large cities.
And if it makes money in 3 hours, chances are it makes more in 30 hours.
Usually if people put money down and there is an entire industry around it, the collective mindset of that industry is close to optimal. They might be wrong on a couple of important issues. They also might be very wrong, but they're still close to optimal by definition because nobody's doing it better.
TL;DR: calling entire world-class industries clueless implies naiveté.
In the same way you or I wouldn't accept a PR that doesn't align with the larger vision of a framework or library we've written, VCs don't want to fund a company if the leaders of the company aren't empathetic with the VCs goals. It's about aligning interests. The goal is really to align technology and people - create something technically amazing, with huge potential, and align yourself and your vision with those who have the capital to fund you.
You don't have to do the dance if you don't want to, but I'd be hesitant to be overly dismissive of it.
Before you think this is a mere joke, consider that normal people don't even know what computer logging is, much less want to become a user of a logging service. The addressable eyeballs are few, and it's a market chock full of free products already. Plus the most serious consumers always end up with a bespoke proprietary solution.
While it's easy to find sensational stories to the contrary, bear in mind that sensationalism is a cheap path to sales, meaning not every narrator is reliable. Indeed, if you start raising money yourself you'll quickly discover how unreliable many "sources" can be.
From Efficient Market Hypothesis: Is The Stock Market Efficient? | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/articles/basics/04/022004.asp#ix... "Conclusion It's safe to say the market is not going to achieve perfect efficiency anytime soon. For greater efficiency to occur, the following criteria must be met: (1) universal access to high-speed and advanced systems of pricing analysis, (2) a universally accepted analysis system of pricing stocks, (3) an absolute absence of human emotion in investment decision-making, (4) the willingness of all investors to accept that their returns or losses will be exactly identical to all other market participants. It is hard to imagine even one of these criteria of market efficiency ever being met."
Markets are interesting, though, in that the more people believe they are efficient, the more inefficiencies creep in, and the more people believe they are inefficient, the more they become efficient. When everyone assumes everyone else has found all the opportunities, nobody bothers to look, and so there are lots of undiscovered opportunities to cash in on. When everyone assumes they can get rich finding opportunities, they bid up prices to very close to their "true" value, and the profit opportunities disappear. It's a self-correcting system.
The question of how widely believed the EMH is itself suffers from selection bias. People who believe markets are efficient don't enter the financial industry, they give their money to Vanguard to manage. That means that everyone in the financial industry, by definition, believes that they can make better-than-average returns, otherwise they wouldn't be in the industry. And then by returns, most of them are wrong, but that also doesn't matter because the few who are right are the ones who survive to play the next round.
Plus in evaluating an industry you would need to see it in context. So returns for investors VS similar asset classes. Or in this case how VC funding compares to other funding methods for founders under relevant circumstances - and looking at relevant metrics (pace of growth, sanity etc).
And they're usually wrong.
Plus the freedom is worth thousands alone in my opinion, if I have the choice I'll never go back to startups. It seems like startups are the default these days, and so many of them would probably be just fine as regular small-medium businesses. I have to cram the idea in people's heads haha, you can make money in software and not be a slave working 14hr days.
But your objective may not be go big or go broke - and you may well end up personally happier for being more balanced in your life. That's perfectly fine in my opinion, and very underrated here on HN.
Edit: Foiled by my delay settings! Damn.
IMO there is to much focus on becoming high growth vs simply creating revenue. Of course creating high growth companies is great thing to do - But so is creating a company that solves a small niche problem and creates sustainable revenue.
https://qbix.com/blog/index.php/2016/11/properly-valuing-con...
I think this is a situation where be a just ruler and exercise judgment in paying employees in proportion to their contribution, makes a lot more sense than trying to codify an agreement.