The "no idea" round is an interesting experiment, but I think the crop of startups it generates is going to be weaker than those that emerge in other seasons.
The danger's not that the ideas will be mediocre, because ideas change so frequently at the seed stage as to be dispensable. I think the real problem is more subtle, and it's the fact that this kind of presentation will attract the wrong sorts of people: narcissists who are attracted to the "we don't invest in ideas, we invest in people" rhetoric that VCs often use. That line is practically designed to appeal to narcissists, because a pathological, arrogant narcissist is going to hear those words and think, "well, I'm already a shoe-in then, because I'm better than all those other idiots who are applying". People will apply just for the personal validation of getting in, and in a "no idea" round, there's no way to filter them out.
There's a flip side of this as well: if you're rejecting or accepting a business strategy or technology concept, people who get rejected will be able to walk away with their dignity intact, because you're turning down a strategy or a plan rather than that individual as a person. So it's entirely impersonal, and they'll apply again in a year or two with a better idea. The "no idea" round is going to leave a sour taste in the mouth of everyone who gets rejected, even though simple mathematics tells us that the vast majority of applicants will be.
By the way, although I don't think PG's motives are such, here's what most venture capitalists actually mean when they say, "oh, we invest in people, not ideas". It means that they invest in stories, and that their decisions are going to be swung by unusual personal stories and heroic narratives, so you can expect a lot of Aleksey Vayner types to get in.
The danger's not that the ideas will be mediocre, because ideas change so frequently at the seed stage as to be dispensable. I think the real problem is more subtle, and it's the fact that this kind of presentation will attract the wrong sorts of people: narcissists who are attracted to the "we don't invest in ideas, we invest in people" rhetoric that VCs often use. That line is practically designed to appeal to narcissists, because a pathological, arrogant narcissist is going to hear those words and think, "well, I'm already a shoe-in then, because I'm better than all those other idiots who are applying". People will apply just for the personal validation of getting in, and in a "no idea" round, there's no way to filter them out.
There's a flip side of this as well: if you're rejecting or accepting a business strategy or technology concept, people who get rejected will be able to walk away with their dignity intact, because you're turning down a strategy or a plan rather than that individual as a person. So it's entirely impersonal, and they'll apply again in a year or two with a better idea. The "no idea" round is going to leave a sour taste in the mouth of everyone who gets rejected, even though simple mathematics tells us that the vast majority of applicants will be.
By the way, although I don't think PG's motives are such, here's what most venture capitalists actually mean when they say, "oh, we invest in people, not ideas". It means that they invest in stories, and that their decisions are going to be swung by unusual personal stories and heroic narratives, so you can expect a lot of Aleksey Vayner types to get in.