Comment by aclimatt | Hacker News Reader

Comment by aclimatt | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

A nitpick that is somewhat related to the thesis, but I think still relevant: I dislike how success in this context is completely centered around raising money, and nothing to do with actually running a profitable company and delivering value.

The main point of the article was to run a LinkedIn ad to get accepted into AngelPad and raise money, and that's totally fair (and commendable!).

But sprinkled throughout the article, there are quotes like:

> I've co-founded two startups that have raised ~$90 million in venture capital (Shyp and Vungle) and have created hundreds of jobs in five different countries.

> Vungle has grown to hundreds of employees and over $25 million in funding.

Is that really the metric of success we're going for? Give anybody $90 million and they can pretty trivially create hundreds of jobs.

I don't know what Vungle's revenue is, but if we're not in a bubble yet, raising a bunch of money, leaving the company, and touting it "hustling" isn't helping.

EDIT: I'd like to clarify briefly that I'm not downplaying raising money. Going out and fundraising is really hard (I've done it), but so aren't dozens of other tasks at a company.

+1 to anybody who is able to successfully bring in funding, but I've met too many people who have felt like their company has "made it" once they've raised money -- when in fact that's just the beginning.

Raising money is "just the beginning" for a company but for many people, including most founders and early employees who raise the funding, it's really the beginning of the end.

With funding comes outside pressure from investors that seeps into and permeates the entire venture. The pressure to show rapid growth, alone, changes what kind of people get hired, how their responsibilities are structured, and how they interact with the pre-funding team. Founders will be pushed out or replaced by career executives from the industry, early employees will be managed out or grow bored with the monotony of an established business, and anyone involved in raising the initial rounds will likely be way out of their depth by the time growth stage funding rolls around.

Let's face it, we monkeys like shiny trophies for well quantified metrics to put on our wall and taking credit for a bunch of zeroes on a check is a lot more practical than for the sum of all of the work and value added by a company that survives for years or decades after you leave it.

That is a stereotype, and a rather crude caricature of what happens after funding. Anyway, that seems to be your opinion, but out of curiosity how many companies have you personally witnessed this happen in?

Also the most valuable technology companies tend to retain their original founders in leadership positions.

I agree that we shouldn't celebrate raising money. Unfortunately that is just a standout metric that many companies are still judged on and was added at the start of the article to give some credibility.

it wouldn't have been as catchy if the title was "here's a tactic that helped me start a company that became profitable and delivering value" ;)

Quite the opposite. It should be a badge of honor to do more with least funding, waste, capital, effort, etc. as possible. I'm convinced at this point that too much funding, especially to inexperienced ops scaling-hat wearing founders, is far, far more destructive than the focused struggle of slightly underfunded, hungry shops that are focused on delivering and not on the tired mythology of funding == success == exit.

OTOH, the campaign to get the last slot cost him only $0.01.

PS: Don't buy a Ferrari if you get funded, it's wiser to milk the poverty appearance card for all it's worth. (I know a guy that recent sold his startup to EMC for 8 digits that ran around with 3 missing hubcaps.)

http://paulgraham.com/fundraising.html

@bmir-alum-007 : sure, you have some good points. Don't worry, I haven't bought a Ferrari.

Exactly. Quotes like:

> The word “hustle” has lost its meaning. Everyone who works hard is called a “hustler,” even if they don’t win. Fuck conceptualization of ‘hustling’ as working hard. I only care about results. A great hustle without results isn’t a great hustle. With this hustle, my goal was to get the attention of the AngelPad founder.

are just downright blatant and uncomfortable. If everybody thinks in this way then we're doomed. Unfortunately nowadays many do seem to do so.

I have heard that Vungle is doing well financially, so I'd say that's success.

I don't know about Shyp tho, but they have a lot of buzz and an innovative product, which in my mind is a success...although they still have a LONG way to go to prove themselves. So I get your point. I don't think funding is defines success, but more so a strong sign that your on your way making something work. And I totally agree...funding in itself isn't something you should brag about.

However, the # of jobs Jack helped create IMHO is 100% a success. It's super rewarding and changes lives (most of the time) in a great way.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com