> that doesn’t mean you necessarily have to go toe to toe with the biggest offers
Most startups insist that their world changing idea can be built only by engineers from MIT or Stanford. That is where the whining on both sides come from.
Most startups insist that their world changing idea can be built only by engineers from MIT or Stanford. That is where the whining on both sides come from.
And if they're right, well then what's there to be upset about?
I was offering it as an explanation.
I believe that there are startups that need special engineering skills. The 40-for-founders-40-for-VCs-20-for-employees math don't incentivize those, though. Which is a shame.
At the turn of the century, a new crop of VCs with founder-friendly terms came about. The industry benefited from it. Many startups that would not have otherwise been founded, were successful.
I am hoping that the market will eventually bring about VCs and founders with employee-friendly terms.
Me commenting here is towards that goal. You have a right to disagree with me, but why argue that I should not be making this point?