Your career is a mess

I disagree with one point:

At Bloomberg Beta, we have backed founders who we know have jobs other than the startup we are investing in — and that’s fine. So long as we share an understanding of how much time they are devoting, and have transparency into all their other roles so we know there are no conflicts, we think having multiple interests is healthy.

Yes, multiple interests is indeed healthy. But I really don't think founding a company should be a part-time endeavor. Maybe a side project is, and if you're backing a side-project as just that, fine. But starting a _company_ -- a real business -- takes an absurd amount of focus and attention and shouldn't be a side dish. I sense there's a reason YC doesn't like to back founders who haven't fully committed themselves to the venture.

Or...?

Edit: To clarify, I'm referring not to running a personal side project or hobby business. Many folks can and should do that sort of thing in their spare time. I'm talking about founding a company - and taking investment - and building a team. That's where real focus and sole dedication is needed.

I spent a year working on a doomed concept before acknowledging that it was probably better to have a job that paid dollars every two weeks.

Eventually, sure, it makes sense to go full time. But there's got to be some kind of real-money-rationale.

If that's the case, of course a career isn't going to be a clean, linear sheet. My resume looks like a cobweb. But for some people, one job for 35 years is totally still attainable.

My resume is very similar to my LinkedIn profile. The primary basis of which is a chronological listing of my employers (or my own self-employed work.) A better picture would be to present it with descending chronological/parallel projects.

The employer-based presentation used to imply something that doesn't seem to matter all that much anymore. For some, it's still a signal -- I'm sure Google or NASA looks pretty good on a resume, for example -- but for the most part, I find that I'm answering questions about project work. The employer is nearly irrelevant, save for some specific scenarios.

Given the transient nature of our industry, I think the actual employer details are going to become secondary in importance. To the point that representation of your background on LinkedIn will be project-based, not employer-based.

I won't comment on the author's general observations and conclusions, some of which I don't agree with, but this provides yet more evidence that there is currently far more capital chasing too few startups.

Can businesses emerge out of side projects? Absolutely. But a $75 million fund that invests explicitly "for financial return" funding part-time founders, actually believing that it can be certain that no conflicts exist or could develop, and that said founders can accurately predict and commit to specific time allocations?

In my opinion, this shows just how desperate some investors are to develop dealflow.

The nature of this new world is that most things we dabble in at the very early stages end up fizzling. Like an author with a new book, people will be less likely to take important risks if they know they'll be scrutinized from the beginning.

Also, a lot of times people want to make their profiles attractive to employers and employers want to see you working in one place for a long time (because they don't want people jumping ship in a few months).