No amount of VC money can fix a bad company that doesn’t solve a burning problem for customers.
Conversely, if you do solve a burning problem for a lot customers, getting VCs onboard will be the least of your concerns.
From my observation VC money gives companies the opportunity to recover from mistakes (“pivot”) which is something companies without deep pockets can’t do.
My contention with OP's point is the absoluteness of the statement they made. They basically claimed that knowing the right people will fix all of your problems. If you read what they wrote, that's almost literally what they said. That is in practice extremely far from the truth. For every successful VC-funded company, there are hundreds that never make it to product-market fit. So clearly VC funding and knowing the right folks isn't sufficient for success.
In making such a strong (and in general provably false) claim, the OP is also taking away credit from Figma for their wild success. They got there through understanding their customers and building the best product on the open market. Period.
It's strange because Figma's success has basically nothing to do with "having enough VC money to pivot around to find product-market fit", which is the central tenet of yours and OP's point. Figma was on the right track the entire time. So this whole point is moot when talking about Figma.
Startups are fundamentally about finding product-market fit. No network can do the hard work of finding PMF for you.
Your claim seems to be that if you know the right people, you'll be successful. That's just flat-out wrong. So many startups are founded by people "in the right networks" and still fail. The vast vast vast majority of them do. How does knowing "the right people" (whoever this vague shadowy group of people are, I'm not even sure how you would define them) fix your problems for you?
Even more strangely, this has literally nothing to do with Figma. Like I stated earlier, they were successful because they worked on the right idea and executed flawlessly. What did their network do for them?
With some of the high money acquisitions where one VC buys another VC company I definitely feel that there are cases where one investor does a favor for one of their buddies. Basically they bail them out.
How many SV entrepreneurs actually care about that? What problem is Snapchat solving? Or DoorDash for that matter?
The game is about raising capital, first and foremost. Especially in a system where the amount of money you can raise is inversely proportional to the company's actual profitability.
Losing money hand over fist? Let us introduce you to our pals at Softbank and the Saudi Arabia "Vision Fund".
Maybe you personally don't find value in those companies, but hundreds of millions of people use Snapchat and tens of millions of people use DoorDash, so clearly they find value in it.
To go further on your point though, how did the Vision Fund solve any problems for entrepreneurs? It gave them a lot of money which they burned through, but then the floor fell out on businesses that weren't sustainable.
This is a marketing pitch, not a problem.
Restaurants have delivered since time immemorial and with better margins than anything Doordash has managed. The Snapchat "problem" was solved with two cans and a string. At least that was still an ad-free experience.
Entry then gets you opportunity to funding.
University circles, family connections, previous job or internship networks can also get you entry.
But attitude matters a lot: if you sped this internship complaining how people are unfair and are not inviting you the their networks and circles - do not be surprised success eludes you.
I personally would never associate or invest in somebody with your mindset: you already lost. I’d rather work with wildly optimistic, even deluded, people.
on HN it may seem like the only possible business is a tech start up with an acquisition as the measure of success, but it isn't.
I tend to think that networks are not excluding on principle. If somebody can demonstrate value, people will be eager to include that person into the network. On the other hand, Quibi shows that networks alone cannot rescue startups.
The interesting group are all the average people who could create something successful (of the Figma type) together. As a group, they have access to all resources, but they don't coordinate them. $20B means that 20.000 people could come together and make $1M each. Maybe they need a tool (of the Figma type) to coordinate themselves and that's another startup opportunity.
And no, networks alone can't accomplish much, and having a great network is no guarantee of success. But clearly having a great, high value network provides a significant advantage over not having any network or only access to low value networks.
Arguably it goes to GP's point - it's not about having a network, but the "right" network. Quibi had the wrong network and was doomed from inception.
> If the network is that important, isn't there a startup looming that provides such a network to the many people who are not in one?
There is, it's called Y Combinator.