[ChicagoDave]

I’ve always been annoyed with the fail fast model. The only group that benefits from fail fast are VCs looking for a big score. They push entrepreneurs to invalidate instead of teaching/helping them how to build a business. It’s all ass backwards.

But for the VC, if they see a hundred good ideas invalidated by bootstrapping founders, they save time and money.

The founders are the suckers if they listen to this bull crap. You still need to validate. But do it by actually trying to make the vision work, not by giving up at the first sign of trouble.

[Johnny555]

The only group that benefits from fail fast are VCs

Doesn't the entrepreneur also benefit if it keeps him from pursuing a business that will never work? Otherwise they may become a victim of the Sunk Cost Fallacy -- after investing so much time and money into their business, they don't want to give up.

The key, of course, is knowing if you really have a failing strategy, or if you just having devoted enough time/money into making it a success. And the VC can look at it more dispassionately than the inventor.

[anstosa]

Ansel from PSL here. You're exactly right. The entrepreneurs we work with want the best shot at a winning idea. Just because we decide to kill an idea doesn't mean we don't end up finding something else in the same area to work on together. It also doesn't mean they can't go do that idea by themselves if they disagree. PSL does not hang onto any rights whatsoever after killing an idea.

It's also worth noting that only half the companies we end up spinning out were generated by entrepreneurs. The rest (including XYLO) are generated and validating in-house before we even seek an entrepreneur to partner with.