[curiouslurker]

Interesting but I often wonder how much better VCs are than the rest of the population at determining startup success. In hindsight they can always say "see, those two factors were important, for my X exit. Told you so" but they also pick companies that make zero sense. Like the $400 juicer company (backed by the most respected VCs in town).

Some also claim to have a thesis but will quickly drop it the moment a hot company comes along that violates their thesis and everyone seems to be investing. I'd like to see a VC publicly state a thesis and then invest in only companies that fit it for 10 years and then do better than average.

And how much of it is confirmation bias? If you back a Facebook early in your career, the very best entrepreneurs will gravitate to you and you will have more success.

[tyrw]

To be fair, the 2 things that are most often cited (timing and product market fit) are what many VCs do invest in, and they often get called crazy for doing so.

The $400 juicer is a great example: my guess is there were some metrics that led them to believe traction or timing were real, even though on the face of it the idea seems silly.