[SmellTheGlove]

I think that suggests that the initial concept and the product that eventually follows will eventually diverge. More emphasis is put on the people steering the ship when you need to change direction, and if I had to guess, investors presume that a change of direction is very likely to happen.

[api]

Yeah, and I assume there are limits to the indifference to traction too. If you stumble in reeking of pot and looking like you haven't bathed in a week but you have 300% CMGR I imagine something might still happen.

[SmellTheGlove]

Definitely. The truth of the matter is that most early stage startups don't have much traction, so trying to split those hairs isn't as important as evaluating the founding team.

Take this for what it's worth from my experience working at various organizations, but in some investment circles, the importance of the management team matters even with large organizations. Berkshire Hathaway, for instance, weighs the strength of management very highly when deciding where to invest, because like an early stage investment model they are largely situated to leave the businesses to manage themselves and provide support in an advisory capacity. I started early in my career at one of Berkshire's best bets (GEICO) not long after Buffett bought the rest of the company. Back then at least, he was the kind of guy that visited and talked to the employees a couple times a year, (even the peons like me), and he was very candid on valuing strength of management very highly in investment decisions. Yes, it was a contrarian bet to buy an insurance company that had almost gone out of business, but he was confident in the ability of the management team. I've been all over the insurance industry, and objectively speaking, that's the best run company I've ever been at, and their growth and market position from 1996 to today would reflect that. And they're not my current employer, btw.