[anotherfounder]

Ah, the classic condescending first response.

> VCs invest into your track record and the ability to put together and retain a good team. "Ex-Google" is a good signal that the person can at the very least _technically_ do what they are promising to do, once they take the cash.

> Nobody has ever promised that money will be given for phenotype traits alone.

Who knew, thanks for enlightening me. Let's just say that I have VCs emailing me now.

[m0zg]

Why "condescending"? It's true. VCs are driven by ROI. ROI is driven largely by whether the person taking investment can do the job.

[anotherfounder]

I assume you are genuinely asking this but I wish I had more energy to dissect it but the fact that you would need to explain that or assume that I mean that one should be funded by phenotype are two quick examples of that condescension. I hope someone else on this thread can explain more in detail..

[m0zg]

You're the one "assuming" on this thread, not me. I did not assume anything at all. If I "assumed" I wouldn't have commented to begin with.

[zentiggr]

So first time leaders are out of luck, or have to be stellar. Gotcha.

And women even more so, not because of any inherent differences in anything but the selection process biases.

Women of color even more so, not because of any inherent differences in anything but selection bias.

Just watch the biases and the whole process even out to an actual chance for all the ideas floating around.

Doesn't have anything to do with teams or ROI when you're talking to a first time pitcher.

[jjeaff]

It all just boils down to the reality of the VC world and that is that none of them have a clue what they are doing.

They might as well bring in a psychic to pick their investments. But they can't let their LPs know that. They've got to justify their fee and so they will do it the safest way possible which is to be copycats or at most choose the most defensible options.