What's the post behind the post? You could write this about almost any profession - and certainly about founders. What you wrote is true. But what are you really trying to say?
On founders, sure, I think you could mostly say this about them too. And in some ways, founders can be worse, because there are lot of people who start companies with nothing but self-serving intentions. That seems somewhat more uncommon with VCs, actually.
That said, there is a certain clubby-ness to VC that isn't as present with founders. There are a lot more founders; they are dissociated; they don't work together in this overlapping network of co-investments; etc. All of those things make seem to venture capital particularly susceptible to the status game, where, if you're in the club, the people who's opinions you are worried about are other VCs. Are founders worried about other founders opinions? Like, yeah, but in a looser sense.
(Case in point: This post, actually. I orbit around the VC world, and I was more hesitant (though obviously not that hesitant) to publish this post than I would ever be about one that is critical of founders. The VC club is smaller; your access to it is more dependent on status and other people's opinions of you; it's more monolithic. Which, it seems, both creates incentives to be agreeable, but also makes you aware of - and insecure about - your position on the totem pole.)
On what I'm really trying to say, there isn't really any darker subtext. Over the last few weeks, I've heard a handful of stories from folks that all follow a roughly similar arc:
- Someone started a company a few years ago, because ZIRP
- They raised a bunch of money, because ZIRP
- The VC they raised was relatively inexperienced, because ZIRP
- Everyone was happy for a while, because ZIRP
- Now, stuff is coming undone, the company is struggling, and the unproven VCs, who lack 1) the experience to know what to do, and 2) a reputation to withstand a few losses, seem to be trying real hard to, first and foremost, prove themselves as a VC.
To your point, it's understandable, in a way. "Show me the incentives, and I'll show you the result," or whatever. But it's also...bad?
What's the post behind the post? You could write this about almost any profession - and certainly about founders. What you wrote is true. But what are you really trying to say?
On founders, sure, I think you could mostly say this about them too. And in some ways, founders can be worse, because there are lot of people who start companies with nothing but self-serving intentions. That seems somewhat more uncommon with VCs, actually.
That said, there is a certain clubby-ness to VC that isn't as present with founders. There are a lot more founders; they are dissociated; they don't work together in this overlapping network of co-investments; etc. All of those things make seem to venture capital particularly susceptible to the status game, where, if you're in the club, the people who's opinions you are worried about are other VCs. Are founders worried about other founders opinions? Like, yeah, but in a looser sense.
(Case in point: This post, actually. I orbit around the VC world, and I was more hesitant (though obviously not that hesitant) to publish this post than I would ever be about one that is critical of founders. The VC club is smaller; your access to it is more dependent on status and other people's opinions of you; it's more monolithic. Which, it seems, both creates incentives to be agreeable, but also makes you aware of - and insecure about - your position on the totem pole.)
On what I'm really trying to say, there isn't really any darker subtext. Over the last few weeks, I've heard a handful of stories from folks that all follow a roughly similar arc:
- Someone started a company a few years ago, because ZIRP
- They raised a bunch of money, because ZIRP
- The VC they raised was relatively inexperienced, because ZIRP
- Everyone was happy for a while, because ZIRP
- Now, stuff is coming undone, the company is struggling, and the unproven VCs, who lack 1) the experience to know what to do, and 2) a reputation to withstand a few losses, seem to be trying real hard to, first and foremost, prove themselves as a VC.
To your point, it's understandable, in a way. "Show me the incentives, and I'll show you the result," or whatever. But it's also...bad?
bestie are you okay 😭
Come on Benn, spill the beans!