The happiest moment of my entrepreneurial life was after my second exit, when I realized that I could self-fund/bootstrap my next venture comfortably and never deal with a VC again.
Meddling, conniving & power-drunk busybodies, all of them.
That's a genuinely interesting statement. If you don't mind me asking... how many times have you failed? Two successes is seriously brilliant, and rare, but the idea that what you'd take away from that is a preference to take on all the risk yourself is surprising. One of the key things I believe I've learnt over my entrepreneurial career to date is that it's a hell of a lot better (well, safer) to risk someone else's money.
My conclusion is that for a multitude of reasons (most of which are well known) having involved investors reduces my chances of success considerably. And all they offer is money.
"And all they offer is money." - I think that's part of the problem you experienced. I've worked with some good investors in the past and they offered great mentoring and networks. A serious question would be "Did you go looking at them primarily for the money?"
I've worked as an analyst for a VC ($200M under management, so not huge nor small), and I can honestly say that you could find better advice by perusing the business book section of your local thrift store.
Part of the problem is the number of "dumb luck" one-time entrepreneurs that make it into VC Partner positions, that think they can extrapolate and apply their limited experience to anything under the sun.
Overconfidence in their own wisdom is hugely problematic, and most of them don't know the line between mentorship and being a de-facto CEO. Very rarely do you hear "I ran into a similar problem and this is how we solved it". Most of the time it is "Do it this way, just trust me because I had a $15M exit back in 1998", and occasionally it becomes "Do this or else we'll throw you out."
I had very different experiences, so tend to strongly disagree with the overall premise but not the average VC premise. There's a power law to VC's, as there is to much out here - the really great VC's are worth their weight and then some; the average to mediocre ones can be downright harmful.
Given that VC industry as a whole doesn't outperform major stock indices, it stands to reason that an average VC doesn't have that much wisdom to offer. Nevertheless, they offer financing and potential networks that you can mine.
Opposite for me. I wish I took VC money. I bootstrapped my startup. We failed. And part of why we failed (besides obviously being cash strapped) was the early validation that we were lacking (from a customer side, but also from an investor/VC side). One shouldn't underestimate the experience and connections those guys have.
> And part of why we failed (besides obviously being cash strapped) was the early validation that we were lacking (from a customer side, but also from an investor/VC side).
If you lack customer validation, you don't have a business. Period. Beyond the seed stage, venture firms are investing to scale nascent businesses. Without customer validation, you aren't going to be able to raise a meaningful amount of capital from investors. Put simply, investor validation is a function of customer validation.
The great thing about customer validation is that you don't need lots of money to get in front of customers, and sometimes you don't even need a finished product at all. No VC is going to do this legwork for you.
I don't understand this. If you turned down VC money ("I wish I took VC money") then what do you mean by "early validation that we were lacking ... from an investor/VC side?"
Do you mean that you weren't able to be taken seriously because you didn't have VC behind you? Or do you mean that you wish you had the opportunity to take VC money?
If the former, I'd like to hear more about it if you can share.
I think they're all clean-shaven and with short hair too. Some anomalies may exist, but I wonder if the ones that look different get walled off -- and with it their personalities and progression.
> Last year, we interviewed a select group of entrepreneurs about their experiences working with venture capital partners—what they wanted from venture investors and what they were actually getting from top tier VCs in Silicon Valley."
What's the sample size here, especially since every dependent variable is expressed as percentage of the # of people who took the survey? A "select group of entrepreneurs" does not sounds like many, and that could seriously result in misleading data.
Also it is really crucial who took the survey. Was it entrepreneurs who were actually funded by the VCs? it says "worked with", but I'm not completely sure what that means.
If the respondents were CEOs of companies funded by a16z and Sequoia etc, then great. But if they were, then why the fuck do they need to recruit for respondents on hacker news?
To entrepreneurs: ask friends or CEOs funded by the VCs you have questions about.
This doesn't have enough info to draw any meaningful conclusions. Other people have already raised potential issues about the sample group. The report glosses over too many details to be useful. Take the chart on page six as an example. Are all respondents rating the VCs or are people only rating VCs they raised money from? Why was USV left off of the chart when it was in earlier charts? If founders don't care much about mentorship (see chart on page four) why are they bothering to include this chart? Wouldn't it be more useful to compare VCs on a metric founders seem to care about like network or industry knowledge? The x axis is also mislabeled but I don't think that should lead to any confusion in this case.
Meddling, conniving & power-drunk busybodies, all of them.