timavr

This is just nuts, people know zilch about risk management. It is just a wealth transfer from people with zero knowledge to professional traders and brokers.

Paying of credit cards, maximising your tax return, investing in things you 100% understand, way easier ways to make money.

People still might get lucky and make epic money, but it is in the same zip code as driving drunk and not getting into a crash.

It is definitely hard and stressful, but when you have your own company, it is up to you to decide how you want to run the company.

You don't have to have co-founders, you don't have to take VC money. You don't have to do anything period.

It is your company, you run it and if somebody else wants to run it, they can either fire you if they have means to do it or buy you out.

Well, I don't think Grant and Thai are scammers from SEC point of view. They run marketing companies, selling books, lectures, online courses. They also have investment vehicles on the side, but they are pretty straight forward.

SEC mostly will be fine if principals disclose the risks to investors in prospectus and do correct accounting.

Companies mostly run intro trouble with SEC for issuing securities illegally, not complying with market reporting procedures, cooking books.

We can open the company that teaches people how to live longer, based on some BS that we cooked up and charge 10k an hour.

As long as in our prospectus we are clear, that there is no scientific evidence that our product does anything and we believe that our BS teachings help people to live longer, we should be good in SEC eyes.It will help to lawyer up when we are doing those prospectus, but I am pretty sure Grant and Thai lawyered up to their ears.

I personally hate these initiatives because they don't deal with problem at the core.

They should have policies that address every fund they manage, not some 100m, which is peanuts for them.

I really like how YC does it. Yes, there are problems with YC, but their main program is really good at taking people from different economic/social/racial backgrounds.

Have tonnes of friends from disadvantaged backgrounds and developing countries that got in. I don't understand why every fund can't do it.

Founders always have skin in the game. It is called their time. Their lifetime is a very finite resource.

In reality, very few founders just raise straight away. 99% of founders spend a significant amount of time working on their business before they see the first dollar from the investor.

Operating business with capital constraints most of the time actually leads to way worse decisions. You start working with people who are less qualified because either they are volunteers or they are the only people you can afford. You start taking worse terms with customers because you need this money to survive the next few months or make the next payroll. You start taking credit card debt just to give you a few months in the hope of closing the client. You put your house as collateral to and pay social/mental costs if things don't work out.

So please please please if you have the opportunity to raise money on standard terms, just do it, unless you have rich uncle/family or wealthy yourself.

Also, people need to stop treating money in a startup financing transaction as a more honorable side of the deal. When you buy tomatoes in a store, you don't go to the store owner and be like "Yo, I gave you money, respect". Startup investors give money for shares in a business. One part of the deal is exactly as valuable as another.

It will be pretty hard to pass on company with a real PMF, irrelevant of anything else.

I don't feel that 99% of what people call PMF really exists. I don't think of AI/Blockchain startups ever had PMF at Series A stage and none of the hardware/bio startups ever do.

Derisking business too early can be dangerous as well. Volatility unlocks opportunities. A little bit of noise in the system is the secret sauce.

YC partners doing a lot of introduction during the fundraising process.

It puts them in a tough spot. If YC partner writes to an investor, this company is awesome, plz invest and then investor asks if YC is going to invest?

And they get back, you commit first and then we decide, it just doesn't look/sound good.

It is important to remember is that a lot of companies in YC batch fundraise on SAFE, so when a priced round comes along probably 90% of them are not even in a position to fundraise, because a product didn't work out, team issues etc.

Also, there is YC Series A program which basically is going to be the sign of approval for investors and I am pretty sure YC is going to follow in 100% of cases for that one.

The problem here is that everyone will know if YC will follow up or not during the process.

Investing is game of information. If an investor can’t figure out who else will be on the cap table, they have much bigger problem.

The way it is going to go down is that investor during meeting will ask if founders think YC is in that round. If founders say something along the lines of YC decides after term sheet, it basically means no.

In the end , the overall result is that less YC companies will raise, but the good once still will, but it was always the case.

It is brilliant because it is brilliant and if you read 3 times and can’t see the brilliance, then....

Just stating that something is good doesn’t make it good, even though people might believe it.

We have a book, which was written quite a long time ago, filled with just utter nonsense. According to PG it is useful writing. It hits on all his points. It is much easier to be persuasive/useful when only you have the light, but when sun is out, you just one of em.

Controversial point, but PGs writing is F-.

It seems a lot of effort goes into sounding smart, rather then delivering information required.

Who learned anything from above?

Here is the top selling list of VR games on Steam.

Boneworks - Unity

Westworld Awakening - Unreal

Beat Saber - Unity

Blade & Sorcery - Unity

Pavlov VR - Unreal

Pistol Whip - Unity

Skyrim VR - Internal

Fallout 4 VR - Internal

Superhot VR - Unity

Layers of Fear VR - Unreal

Zero Caliber VR - Unreal

Moss - Unreal

5 - Unity, 5 - Unreal, 2 - Internal. Depends on a game type you wanna build and perks of each engine.(grants etc)

Handbook on how to build an army, that is going to be slaughtered 99% of the time.

US legal system is broken af.

The point of legal system should be to compensate the wronged party, not to enrich lawyers.

1 billion worth of Azure credits?

Did Paul Graham write an algorithm which crawls twitter and counts all this robo haters?

The bigger reason is that Tesla really put themselves out there and now negative stories getting a lot of views.

Making hit/innovative games is super hard.

Not only from a financial perspective but from an emotional/personal as well. You need people who can dedicate years of their life developing new tech and actually making the thing, knowing that there is a large chance to fail.

As per Valve handbook, each "co-worker" should think about the risks to the company and it is not surprising that as a group they work on less risky things which can generate profit. (Steam, existing titles).

But as competition in storefronts increases, I think they will be forced to innovate, either through VR, their own games or some other way.

Well that’s why people in power and leadership roles make big bucks.

They must make sure that everyone performs to the max of their ability and at the same time limit risks.

Otherwise it is work discrimination light.

Yes. On serious note, it is huge opportunity even as non VC scale biz. It is infinite in nature.

I think the problem lies in gender education in schools and colleges, where people get lost in transition to adult life.

Like hitting on everyone/anyone in college is fair game because there is no power differential, but as soon as people enter workforce, they need to be retrained.

In America what person is going to gain by bringing accusations.

The best case is pay out, but they definitely lost this job, future opportunities, etc. They are not going to get recommendations letters.

As soon as you accuse someone you start costing company gigaton of money.

In America we promote/keep people who make money not cost money.

Just change the question to? Are you OK with us continuing in my room because blah blah, otherwise we can just do it in the lobby.

Basically, you give them power to decide where they feel comfortable most. Especially first time around.

“Can you come to my room in 30m to do blah” is an order basically, so as a result you already create hostile situation irrelevant of gender.

The problem is that risk reward is so skewed in other direction.

For anyone to accuse someone of sexual harassment is 100% career killing move.

So when 2 people in the room, the one with least power has the most to loose in bringing accusations.

Lol. I like it.

But a result, you treat them unfairly vs male colleagues.

Also same logic can be applied to any minority who is not in power.

I can’t be in room with black, trans-gender, gay, immigrants etc.

So as result the only people who you built relationships are white straight dudes which get promoted.

We are getting close.

Can you define accidentally?

Do a lot of people give their boss middle finger accidentally?

Like yo, went to work, talked to CEO and give him finger, must be weather.

We can just go with euphemism, like “work comfort” and obviously we do it for all genders.

Only in America.

Women is very dangerous, be aware.

On serious note, somebody should do a startup which trains men to work with women.

Apparently opportunity is huge. Should be the first slide. 60% of all men...

I don't see any problem here. Investors control the company. If they want to hire Micky Mouse to run it, so be it.

The bigger issue is that the article is non-transparent.

What company? Why CEO left? What was achieved during those 4 months?

This article is so one sided. Either you have votes or don’t have votes.