I have a hard time believing this.

Bragger hears: "that should be the only factor when evaluating a startup’s chances of success".

How much the CEO makes might not be the best predictor of startup success, but it might be the best one that you can accurately judge by asking a single question. You can't ask "is your product solid?" and expect a meaningful answer.

Of course, since noone would ever try to predict a startup's chancess of success on the basis of a single question, it's also possible Thiel was just using artistic license.

Trail Blazers are the guys who are willing to work night and day and basically kill themselves to start a company up. In order to make that ordeal worth while you need to have a big pay out at the end.

Maintainers are the guys who come in afterwards. Smart people but people who have outside lives they aren't willing to destroy for the company. These are the guys who make a successful startup into a long term company

In my experience you can't successfully create a startup with maintainers. There's just too much that needs to happen in too short a time period. I think that is what Mr. Thiel is saying. His rules help you avoid a company trying to startup with maintainers.

(For the record I know there are odd exceptions to this rule that can seamlessly transition from one role to the other. But in my experience they're very rare)

"What ever happened to looking at the team, their vision, their track record, how well they’re executing, is the product solid, etc."

Which doesn't dismiss the point of the original. Say you look at those things ... exactly how good could they be to outweigh the fact that the CEO downwards are extracting exorbitant amounts of value from a fledging firm? The original article's point is: never good enough.

There are similar truisms in many fields. (eg, the now well-cited example that the only thing that truly dooms a relationship is contempt). Finding them takes experience, and incredulity doesn't counter that.

(Also, an off-topic peeve: Informative headlines are always appreciated. I wouldn't have clicked if I didn't see your name there.)

There's an old rule of thumb in stock trading (although it may be only from the person that told it to me; I've not heard it before or since) that says if a non New York based company opens an office in New York, particularly a big fancy one, sell immediately. The theory being that the CEO is trying to build a monument to himself rather than keeping on with a good business strategy.

Why would I as an equity-holder care if the company is generating a profit, unless that helps it exit? The only way I'm ever going to see a return is if the company exits. If it's profitable but cannot exit (from what I've heard, porn sites would be examples of this), then it's worthless to me.