Comment by michaelochurch | Hacker News Reader

Comment by michaelochurch | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

How did the founder manage to build a company of 70 employees without a product and securing 30 million fundings after 2 years of not really showing anything?

Stanford Welfare and chicken-hawking.

Stanford Welfare sometimes works out. Snapchat wouldn't exist without Stanford Welfare but it's now valued at billions. It may not be good for the world but it would have been a good investment-- assuming it can find liquidity before a Flight to Substance (which is quite possible, because anyone who claims to know when an F2S will happen is wrong; no one knows).

Chicken-hawking is when a middle-aged man takes a young sociopath as protege in order to resolve a midlife crisis and live vicariously through him. People like Duplan appeal to such people. When your goal is to live vicariously through someone, you want to fund someone who'll go a bit wild with that money, not someone who'll be committed to the "boring" task of building a business.

This is a really good point. I've heard the term Chicken Hawking in a very, very different context but it works here as well.

I think the illuminating bit of information is there is a real difference between the worldview of a VC and a founder. VCs have no clue what's possible or not (and in my experience don't actually understand businesses because most haven't run thenm- they went to Biz School, got their MBAs and that's it.)

So, in todays environment where "founders" are usually kids right out of college with no actual business experience, then their perfect "mate" is a VC who also has no experience. The kid is young and ambitious and has no clue on the limits of his own possibilities-- and the VC is just looking for a payoff without real work the size of the kids ego.

IT's a great match and it explains a lot.

Like why real engineers and real business people building real businesses have a lot more trouble raising money.

I don't doubt the existence of clueless VCs who throw their money around, but that's no different from any other form of business. They'll soon lose that money.

The problem is that, given the anecdote of another commenter with intimate knowledge of the situation, Michael's explanation doesn't match reality. I suspect cases like this often defy simple rationalization, but as outsiders we don't have the facts to correct our theories.

You're making nasty allegations about specific people without a shred of evidence. That's a personal attack, and those are not allowed on Hacker News.

Snapchat may not be useful to the world by your definition, or for that matter mine. But it provides enough value for 100-200mm people to regularly use.

"Chicken hawking is when a middle aged man takes a young sociopath as his protege..."

O M G

There is a term for this!!?!?!

Clap clap clap...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com