[michaelochurch]

The firm also seems to prefer investing in very young entrepreneurs. Leone said it typically invests in people who are age 25 or younger these days. [...]

Leone called the shift a thankful one, explaining that if you want a founder to serve as the VP of product or in a very important technical role or as the CEO, it’s possible to have such conversations, whereas it’s “different conversation” with a 45-year-old founder who’s “bent on being CEO.”

Read: We'd rather fund a young person who's thankful just to get funding and doesn't know his rights, because it's easier to ask for onerous terms and to boot him later.

[sanswork]

I read it more as a younger founder is more likely to accept that at a certain point they might not be best in the CEO spot at that stage in their professional development(and at some stages of the companies development) while still retaining "creative control" through a more product focused role.

[erikpukinskis]

This quote too:

We know after many, many years that your DNA is set in the first 60 to 90 days, and we want to be there to assist you to create some of the best DNA that Silicon Valley has ever seen.

There seems to be a pretty obvious undercurrent of "We want to invest in people who we can muscle around" there. I can't blame them. They're making lots of money, so it's working. And entrepreneurs are getting their payouts too.

But god help you if you have different goals than your VCs.

[michaelochurch]

They're making lots of money, so it's working.

VC firms are making lots of 2&20. Mostly 2. Performance for VC firms has been poor since 2001.

[larrys]

Also there is an aura with a younger person. Similar to real estate that is fresh on the market and hasn't been sitting. You can believe you have discovered something and are grabbing it before anyone else sees the potential.