Steve Blank: Can You Trust Any VC’s Under 40?

steveblank.com

26 points·wyday··8 comments

Open articleView on HN

Chris Sacca's under 40, right?

If so, I would consider him to be a counter-example.

Why?

Also, he's not a VC.

He might be now. Check out Lowercase.

http://www.crunchbase.com/financial-organization/lowercase-c...

Yup. That's what I was referring to. It's new, but he's been investing for a while now.

I would trust him because I've been following his career since 2005, and I think that, in addition to being passionate, a nice guy, and very smart, I think he's well-suited to being a VC. He seems to have a good mix of interests in technology, entrepreneurship, marketing, and politics.

If I was in the market for a VC (or an investor, as he is until he gets Lowercase off the ground), he would be up there with some other investors with more years of experience, because he's been learning at a very quick pace and in a way that gives him perspective--by speaking, meeting founders, and making small investments.

Steve Blank's issue isn't with how many years of experience the VC has -- it's about whether the VC has had any experience prior to 1995. Silicon Valley's rules changed in 1995, around the time of the Netscape IPO. Steve argues that entrepreneurs and investors raised after 1995 are unlikely to have experience running a sustainably profitable business. Their experience will be solely focused around "flipping" companies for a quick IPO or acquisition.

I think the need to understand the rules before 1995 is a decent point, but the headline implies that people can't gain perspective from before 1995 without actually being there. Not true. People who are curious enough can find a way to understand it.

Good point -- definitely agree with you there.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com