|
|
|
|
|
by dangus
2300 days ago
|
|
I guess my argument is that you could replace him with any number of the numerous reasonably above average performers at your company and the results would be the same. The difference is that none of your coworkers got to sell a company to Yahoo! at an inflated dot com era price to fund a venture capital firm. Sure, YC is a famous seed accelerator, but it’s also not unlike a number of other early stage investment firms that also provide mentoring and guidance to early stage founders. The success of these venture firms boils down to a math equation and a selection process, not any sort of unique secret sauce. It is a venture of owning capital and growing it, not of any sort of unique skill set. |
|
I do think that YC, from a Performance perspective is light years ahead of all the others that launched just after it did.
For me, the skill of PG was being relentlessly focused on the core of what made startups in that era super leveraged. That insight is obvious now but it wasn’t at the time. The essays did synthesize explicitly how and why startups work. No one else was taking such an extreme position: that you just needed to make Stuff people wanted and the rest would be viable.
Lots of VCs to this day still think there’s all this other shit you need. And if I’m being honest, some YC leaders have bought into that too.
I agree, like all white male founders and rich before and after PG, that 90% of it is extreme privilege and chance but that’s literally all of tech Wealth at the moment