Hacker News Reader

Comment by tocomment | Hacker News Reader

Why are startup failures so bad for the founders? I haven't heard that before.

A total failure (not an acq-hire) is bad for your reputation. The acq-hire gets you a Director or VP-level position at the acquirer even though it leaves your employees screwed. Actual run-out-of-money business failure makes it hard to get funded again. VC is a regressive reputation economy in which no one likes you if they perceive others as not liking you, so actually having to close a business down makes you unfundable.

Is this from the experience of someone who tried to raise again after failing? At the end of the day it's what you produce and the opportunity at hand not what you've done. Raising with a pitch and a dream is rightfully more difficult the second time around.

Is this at the seed stage or later? Wouldn't VCs prefer to put their money in one who has tried a startup before and failed than a first-timer for whom there are a lot more unknowns?

Acq-hire is the socially acceptable way to fail. If you actually fail in the everyone-gets-fired sense, then you have the double stigma of (a) failing and (b) not having built something deserving even of the consolation prize.

Oh, and if your investors fire you "for performance" (if the thing in a tail spin, getting fired almost doesn't matter and might make your life better) you might as well kill self. No one is going to touch a fired founder with a 10-foot pole. Even regular jobs are out of the question, much less the EIR sinecures and executive injections that acqui-failed founders usually get.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com