(1) "I was told to hire a lot of people. Put fuel on the fire they said. Bring industry experts who can move the needle. All this BS you hear all day. All failed. I hired VPs and bloated my payroll. Ultimately I ended up with a bunch of highly paid employees who don’t know how to do anything but to “build and lead amazing teams.” Imagine you hire someone to scale an area and their solution is to divide that area into 5 sub areas and hire someone for each of them to figure it out, etc. that’s their solution."
(2) "I ended up focusing my efforts on hiring and ramping up those VPs and dealing with their dumb ideas instead of focusing on my 3 core tenants: build, sell, and deliver."
I worked at a startup that had <4 months of runway left and thought the best plan was to bring on a VP of Data Science because of their resume/history, in spite of the fact that we had no data to do science on and no customers for which to provide value via data science. That VP of Data Science turned out to be a person that didn't know how to do much more than, as the article said, "build and scale amazing teams".
The story ends as you'd expect, we all got laid off and the founder was shitty.
> I worked at a startup that had <4 months of runway left and thought the best plan was to bring on a VP of Data Science because of their resume/history, in spite of the fact that we had no data to do science on and no customers for which to provide value via data science.
Reminds me of a project life cycle cartoon I first saw in a software book early in my career.
Just now searched for "systems analysis tyre cartoon" and selected this page, which seems the best, on a brief look, since it has both some history and multiple versions of the cartoon:
I like number 7, the documentation one, which really goes to show how little the real item is understood while everyone else is creating/imagining their own version. Dissociation within the whole team.
That's how it works in a nutshell. Lots of talkers out there. The people I know who do the real work are the ones at the bottom, and you don't know them because they keep their heads down and focus on writing code. The people that self-promote the most are the ones least capable.
Time spent coding is a zero sum. Leaders are needed to identify how to do use that energy and time. In terms of business success. This might be the #1 thing (granted I’m entirely speculating). Are your priorities correct and do the engineers know them? This is not that easy. People will argue endlessly over when to address tech debt, how much security is enough security, how much to deliver early vs fully formed, what features to build, When to bail on a half made feature, etc etc.
Looks like we found the person “building and leading amazing teams” in the thread. How could those lowly coders ever figure out how to secure a product?
People building projects don't tend to argue about tech debt and security unless they've had a leader make decisions that compromised their comfort levels. Quorum decision making in those circumstances keeps those things in check.
> Quorum decision making in those circumstances keeps those things in check.
Depends upon the composition of the quorum. If the quorum is mostly "eh it works, just ship it", jugaad, chabuduo, corner cutting engineers, then I've witnessed adverse results.
Conscientious engineering that delicately balances trade-offs is difficult to teach, and poorly discerned by most casual observers (even other conscientious engineers casually observing) in the short term.
The OP should hire someone to handle VC requests (better say to send most of those requests to /dev/null with a nice chocolate & flowers wrap) and keep customers happy with his productive five employees. Growth would come naturally over time.
You hire useless people and pay them bloated salaries using investors' money. Then they order something from a consulting firm ran by your wife, or just remember the favor, and hire you into an overpaid useless role next time they secure a round.
On paper it looks like money is being spent on product development. In practice, it's a network of friends using buzzwords to direct VC money into their pockets.
Investors don't mind it too much. Fund managers are not investing their own money either (and are part of the game) and angels hope that a chance of owning 1% of the next Uber justifies all the financial shenanigans.
> Ultimately I ended up with a bunch of highly paid employees who don’t know how to do anything but to “build and lead amazing teams.”
I've worked at a lot of startups. The worst of them were led by people who list things like "organization design" and "build and lead amazing teams" on their LinkedIn.
At the most dysfunctional company, the ex-FAANG CTO would take key job descriptions and add the requirement that they must have FAANG experience. This created a glass ceiling where the early employees, non of whom had FAANG backgrounds, were unable to be promoted. Instead, we got a lot of ex-FAANG VPs and Directors who didn't know how to function at a startup. They were told to lead teams of people who knew the business inside and out (because they built it!) yet they could barely function outside of a big company themselves. Every meeting would be a competition of stories about "At Microsoft we did this..." or "At Facebook we did that..." because playing the FAANG card was the only thing the CTO liked to hear.
The only non-FAANG person who thrived at that company was the single worst leader I've ever reported to. He is a LinkedIn influencer with his own newsletter where he talks about, among other things, his expertise in "Organizational Design". Yet the organization he designed was completely dysfunctional because he ignored how the business worked and instead hired arbitrary numbers of people according to some book he read. Half of the people at that company were 90% idle, while the other half were working 80 hour weeks because the "organizational design" person had strictly assigned responsibilities to arbitrary teams in a way that didn't account for how the business actually worked.
The next line from this post is exactly how he responded to every problem:
> Imagine you hire someone to scale an area and their solution is to divide that area into 5 sub areas and hire someone for each of them to figure it out, etc. that’s their solution.
He was never accountable for anything because he always had someone under him to blame.
"I have a proven track record of building and leading amazing engineering teams."
"Okay. What's the difference between a character and a string?"
*crickets*
We all have our specialities, but jesus ¢@&#ing christ: if you're interviewing for an engineering role, of any sort, you should be able to answer basic questions.
I interviewed an ex-FAANG (developer) currently working as a software executive for a director role at a previous company. This person included 5 years-ish of Haskell experience on their resume. I don't know Haskell at all, but am aware of the language and its design principles, so I figured a lot of my technical questions would be pretty easy for him
Boy was I wrong. My first question was "Name the most common data structures you use day to day". He stayed silent for a bit and then said "What, do you want me to just list them?" I said yes. After some more silence he said he couldn't recall any. The fact that he said "list" was particularly ironic.
I kind of gave up on expecting used-to-be software developers to have retained a single bit of knowledge from their time as a dev after they've moved on to "leadership" or "management". I believe it's important for technical leadership
to understand technical problems and their solutions in broad strokes, but it seems I'm mostly in the minority in the real world. That interview (and trying to hire for that role) really showed me how little engineering leaders remember about software.
I write code every day and I still had to ponder your question for quite a while before I could think of a data structure I use regularly by name.
It is not exactly useful knowledge to keep top of mind. It is not like you need to look up how to use daily data structures. I had an easier time remembering the names of data structures I almost never use, or even have never used, as retaining their names actually has some usefulness.
In an interview situation, I expect I would also give up with stating I could not recall any to save the awkwardness of sitting there silent for half an hour racking my brain.
I'm sorry, but what? If you can't even remember what list/set/map whatever is called, how are you going to use them? We're not talking about exact syntax here, just what data structures you use...
> If you can't even remember what list/set/map whatever is called, how are you going to use them?
Certainly not by dictating their names to my coworker. Why would I need to know their names? I suppose some languages require you to know their names in order to use built-in implementations, but lots of languages use other syntax – often void of natural language (e.g. [], {}, etc.) – to do the same.
I eventually got there, but it took awhile to remember. That's great if you have prioritized trivia to occupy your mind's space, but I have found no reason to.
I think the part of the question that throws people is “most common”. It begins to sounds like a trick question, because it hat is the most common? Its going to very from code base to code base.
Maybe id the question was name 3 data structures, any 3 it might sit well.
But even so. The question did devolve into list of things somebody should know as a ex developer.
That's interesting ... Might be my specific view on Haskell, but there is a lot of emphasis on using the right data structure for the right job. That's probably because due to Haskell being immutable you have to rethink which standard data structures you can reasonable use.
What role were you interviewing for? Sure anyone with a serious CS degree at some point knew the difference between a char and a string. But if you're hiring a VP or product in a larger org, it doesn't matter whether they remember because the people they'd be managing wouldn't even need to know.
It’s quite possible to avoid learning this. A trivial way is to do all of your coding in python, and then never do anything more advanced than a todo MVC app. Do this for 3 years then get promoted to management and stop coding.
When money was cheap, delivery didn’t matter for a while.
I've interviewed and approved people for hiring who probably did not know the actual difference between a char and a string. And they've done more than a TODO MVP. They were great employees. For python dev work you really don't need to know about that, since it doesn't have a dedicated char type. They could probably answer questions about Django and RabbitMQ that OP couldn't.
But I'm assuming OP is hiring for a lower-level language role where that knowledge is necessary. I've interviewed people with similar levels of incompetence. Again for that Django role, people who did not know the difference between GET and POST. I'm amazed they made it past the first phone screen with our hiring manager. And I'm curious how bad the people who did not pass the phone screen were.
In their defence, many companies advertise various "leadership positions", but once you get to an interview stage, you see they are looking for another JavaScript monkey in the team, and the whole leadership thing is a pie in the sky in lieu of a competitive salary.
Presumably something like "a string is a sequence of characters" would be a good first answer, though it might prompt some follow-up questions.
I love how questions like this suddenly become more complicated when you have a deeper understanding of the internals. Your first instinct of an answer might not be 100% correct. If I were asked this question unexpectedly, I'd probably trip over myself a few times as I thought through it out loud.
My high water mark was the basics... and then the candidate drawing an analogy between char as primitive and char-array-based-strings as object oriented classes that offered additional functionality on top of chars.
That sounds like someone who will make a four-page fizzbuzz solution, which was at one stage a highlight for us.
What I try to get candidates to do in interviews is find the project they are most proud of, and get them to talk about it at a technical level - the constraints, challenges & solutions. That’s much harder to fake than pretty much anything else, and works at any technical level. My theory is that if they can communicate technical things in enough detail, and show that they have sufficient depth in at least one area they should be able to move sideways into our stack and context.
Not the OP but I'd expect the desired answer to be some kind of semi-technical discussion that shows they understand the fundamentals even if they've forgotten all the details and can have a healthy conversation, not that they know the answer.
Possible good indicators: "I haven't written C code in a decades, but one is a byte, one is a structure" "I'd be in over my head with Unicode but.." "What are you looking to solve?"
Bad indicators: Hostility. Authoritative wrong answers.
(For a director of Product role once, I was asked the difference between REST and SOAP -- not because he cared that I knew the answer, but because he wanted to see how I could work with an engineer who was focusing on the wrong problem)
It's a grab bag, tell-me-something-interesting icebreaker question. I'm looking for some evidence of the fact that you can differentiate the two in some meaningful way.
Not intended to be a gotcha question! Just a quick test of basic CS knowledge to get the candidate comfortable.
There’s nothing irrelevant about measuring someone’s technical understanding of the very basics at the same time that you gauge their ability to have a conversation about the domain.
This makes for frustrating reading, coming from an industry where "Organizational Design" can have extremely serious consequences: the military.
A brief case study: Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The argument has been made (and I agree) that much of their early failures stem from not understanding/implementing Unified Command. They didn't have a Joint Task Force Commander who was responsible for the entire Area of Operations. They didn't have an Air Component Commander subordinate to the JTF to ensure all air operations achieved synergy with, and were in support of, the ground scheme of maneuver.
Most field-grade officers who have planned and/or executed a major multi-service or multi-national training exercise are familiar with Command Relationship org charts and understand WHY they are important (if that stuff isn't clear, responsibilities get fuzzy when edge cases arise, and then in the resulting confusion/friction....people die). It's also just as important to understand how much of that "big DoD" cruft you can peel away when you are doing small, localized training with a developing nation with....austere practices, shall we say.
So I could see adding "Organizational Design" to my LinkedIn....unknowingly putting myself in the same bucket as "hot-air no-nothing ex-FAANG managers". And then no one cares what digital signal processing stuff I could do for them as an IC... :(
I’m a VC backed founder. The VCs will give you lots of advice, but generally are removed enough from the business that it’s obviously up to you to make final strategic decisions.
This story is remarkable in one sense: the founder removes all of his own agency from the story. The vast majority of initial financing rounds leave the founders in control of companies these days…
Finally, a VC backed company is always likely to die. If you want to run a nice, small SaaS, don’t take VC. Whether financing comes from a bank loan, an angel, private equity or VC, one job of entrepreneurs is to align incentives with capital sources.
A nice small SaaS will also almost always die quick.
IMO, it is foolish to hinge the decision of taking VC money or not based on potential lifespan alone.
VC money could kill your startup quickly, but you could potentially make a lot of stable money in that short period of time, and end up better off than collecting smaller profit from your small SaaS that lives for a longer period of time.
And yea most of the time you are reinvesting profits but you should hopefully be paying yourself too along the way. Not to mention you are also paying a lot of other people as well and creating value for them.
Ultimately VC money isn’t destroyed, it’s just reabsorbed into a wider economy.
Even that should be equivalent to distributing throughout the economy. If you burn 100 units of money, you are decreasing it's supply, increasing it's value by a tiny bit.
All I'm thinking is, you Americans are really fucking lucky. Yeah OK, VCs are greedy and difficult to work with, but at least they give you a chance and literally give you startup capital in the millions to build your own thing. That is mind blowing to me and definitely what sets America apart from everywhere else.
The built-in culture of risk taking in US can't be underestimated. Yes, we joke about Florida man and lament about the excess funding for startups. But with great risk comes great reward, and chances for inexperienced founders to prove themselves. Nowhere else on the planet are you able to do that with such magnitude, not in Japan, not in Europe, not in China (now that they're broke and in a Great Depression, and Xi is killing off entrepreneurs).
Is the claim that innovation only happens in the USA? That the only good companies are US companies? What are the specific benefits, other than merely indulging the startup fantasies of a relatively small number of founders, that come from this "high risk, high reward" environment?
An insane amount of money, world hegemony, and a very high standard of living. I’m not sure the average European appreciates just how comfortable life in the US is. And the average American doesn’t know that things they take fir granted are luxuries even to Western Europeans. Outside of a handful of small countries with specialized economies, European income per capita is at or below per capita income in even the poorest US state. Even the vast majority of poor people here have iPhones and cars and can afford to run their air conditioners at 68F all day.
Insane amount of money: Of the 10 countries with the highest median income, 7 of them are European. By some measures, the USA is-midpack, with Norway/Canada very similar to us, but missing most of the entrepeneurial/VC culture of the USA.
World hegemony: mostly a function of the post-WWII situation, combined with our willingness to spend absolutely insane amounts on our military and use it to impose or at minimum encourage US interests globally.
Very high standard of living: the US has one of the highest GINI coefficients world wide, so only a median comparison (which is quite hard to develop) really conveys the differences accurately. Large swaths of the USA (notably Appalachia and also the desert southwest) have a substantially lower median standard of living than most of Europe.
Anyway, even if your claims about the USA were true, that by itself doesn't connect them to the VC risk/reward culture under discussion.
You cannot be serious, this has to be a troll. By pretty much every quality of life index most European countries (esp Western European) rank higher than US. Why do Americans group Europe into one chunk like this? And what exactly is the benefit of income per capita when the environment you have to spend it in isn’t as nice as 90% of European cities/towns?
> * And the average American doesn’t know that things they take fir granted are luxuries even to Western Europeans.*
Such as? Name three examples, please. "smartphones and cars" doesn't cut it, those are pretty common even for low income citizens here in Germany at least, and we don't really need air conditioners on account of being located in higher latitudes – everyone has heating, though.
High quality food delivery (at any time, but especially after 22:00). 24 hour pharmacies. 24 hour grocery stores. Air conditioning. Cheap gas. Road trips where you have a personal vehicle when you arrive. Hot water in 100% of all handwashing sinks. Urgent care centers. Whole Foods.
You're 100% wrong about not needing air conditioning in Germany. Many of the last 45 days here have been above 24C. You're just used to being sweaty and uncomfortable.
A doctor who worked at Charite in Berlin told me last month that the whole summer he worked there he struggled to not drip sweat directly into patients as he leaned over them to work.
> Outside of a handful of small countries with specialized economies, European income per capita is at or below per capita income in even the poorest US state.
And yet the quality of life doesn’t even begin to compare.
My friend has a huge 4,000 sq foot brand new house in the South for 1/3 the average price in London. You cannot find that type of house even in the richest areas in Europe.
Said another way, America is the sandbox for the rich to experiment on the poor, with technology that may or may not be good for the poor but ultimately doesn’t matter because the ultimate winner is always the one funding them.
It’s the test and staging servers for global capitalism
Those companies have generated hundreds of thousands of extremely high paying jobs because hundreds of millions of consumers/many businesses chose to give them money.
The poor in America are richer than the poor in just about any other country. The US poverty line is around the top 15% of world incomes, and that's pre tax transfers. Post tax transfers puts them much higher.
The advantage is not in American recklessness, it’s in American shamelessness. The only risk made is in the money, someone’s “honor” doesn’t play into it, for the most part.
Most definitely. I would say here in Germany, the number one thing that is missing is the culture. Everyone here is extremely risk averse and pessimistic. Then of course we don't get any startups and also no startup capital.
Let us not forget the immense paperwork and everything that entails, while I read that one can simply pay few hundred dollars in US and start their own business tomorrow.
i mean, it exists in europe and asia too (i'm not familiar with latam/africa so less willing to make this kind of statement there). and if you pass some kind of socioeconomic bar you can be based anywhere but "effectively part of the US startup scene" if you hustle into the right circles. step 1 is incorporate thru stripe atlas imo.
The guy is complaining about making millions being his own boss and working on his own idea funded by someone else's money and is blaming the people who gave him the money to do so. Much less, now that he lost it all, he is not in debt for the rest of his life or in prison. True first world problems.
Elements of this story indicate a founder who simply lost control of their company, which is their job as a founder. I don’t think the VC is the villain here.
They raised at an inflated valuation and seemingly received a favorable multiple (100-10x “7-figure” revenue). The fact that they rode out the company to 0 means they had board control and were never fired. So they are ultimately responsible for every decision they made. Including over-hiring and not firing their clueless VPs.
I say this as a founder of a yc-backed company that was acquired. I know the pressures of short-sided VCs. I also know that the job of a founder is to pick which advice you follow.
Exactly that's the big takeaway: he didn't learn what he should have learned: that it was his horse to lead. A CEO that slavishly follows the VCs has abdicated.
I can condense this to 'I thought CEO was a nice title but I failed at taking it seriously and allowed others to lead my company whilst I held the title'.
The results are predictable. Note how there is no acceptance of personal responsibility.
I also note that there isn't a shred of evidence for this whole story, and $100M to $0 does not seem like a believable trajectory (nor does $0 to $100M, but the other is much less believable).
I’m willing to accept the 0 to 100M to 0 plot line. But I agree, if this was a truly productive post the poster would have also admitted some level of personal culpability. They are the founder after all and the VC is just another stakeholder. The founder hired those VPs, not the VCs.
A key requirement of any company is managing your equity holders.
$100M to 0 sounds plausible for a founder with common stock in a VC led company with little success. You can raise a lot of money without much revenue or track record, but it will come with all kinds of liquidation preferences leaving common stock at 0 if things don't go like a rocket ship.
This sounds like the start up I left a couple years ago. I was employee number 3. I took a deep pay cut to join them. I shared a cubicle with the ceo and cto, the two cofounders. Tight nit group.
A year later, we had our first round of vc fund. I had a slight bump in salary, but owned stocks so all is good. My role was, make-things-work-at-all-cost. I'd be on calls with customers and their engineers to make things work. I'd generate specialized reports by merging data locally, I'd get a calls on my personal phone from customers. We did the things that don't scale.
Year 2, we are 30 employees getting ready for another round of funding, the ceo and cto spent all their time in vc meetings. I worked in all my waking hours, it was unsustainable. I told them I needed a break, the way they responded showed me that I was just another replaceable employee.
I packed my stuff and left, they tried to screw with my stocks, but i fought back and got it all. They got their second funding. They never replaced me. Instead of hiring 2 or 3 people to do my job in a scalable manner, they stopped offering the service all together. Instead they went with buzzwords in AI.
Fast forward 3 years. The company was acquired, the stocks are worth 0 dollars, and most employees got fired. Though the linkedin post sounds like a success story.
1) How can you be in an "executive job at a FAANG" and not know this is how the VC model works?
2) > I hope this part is clear because it’s the crux of the misalignment between founders and VCs.
This is the crux of the misalignment between small business owners and VCs. The large majority of the startup founders I've met all have dreams of building a rocket ship, not of building a happy small business. If you're in the latter camp, as I have been several times, you usually know better than to take VC money.
That seems obvious? At least in the tech industry, I'd expect someone in an executive role to have some understanding of VC given how it influences so much that happens in the space. If you hired someone from a traditional manufacturing company, maybe not.
This is someone in their teenage to twenties, who makes 10 reddit accounts a month, farms karma on them, then sells them to spammers in a couple months for a couple hundred dollars each.
Reddit moderators set rules such that many subreddits have minimum karma and age requirements to post.
If you're a marketer who wants to create networks of shill accounts (happens more than you think) then you need enough accounts that meet these requirements.
What I got out of the post is – "My business was on a path to success because of my own efforts, and failed only because of those pesky VCs and their money". With an attitude like that no wonder they lost what they had.
Honest question: if you sell <50% of your company to VCs or anyone else and your articles of incorporation state that you can do whatever you want if you own >50%, then why do what the VCs tell you to do?
Beyond gaining some sort of reputation for not doing what your investors want, is there anything else?
Why don’t you pick up the soccer ball and run around with it in your hands? There’s no fundamental reason you can’t have minority investors whose opinions you completely ignore, but that’s not the game that VCs or the people who accept VC money are playing.
If you assume you can outsmart a VC who has worked with hundreds of startups with an idea you just had you are exactly the schmuck they want to work with.
The actual deals are very complex and the details are hard to understand but it isn't as simple as "here is $10m go make me rich".
> your articles of incorporation state that you can do whatever you want if you own >50%
Then VCs won't invest in you, put a bunch of cash into a competitor, bleed you dry and either let you die or force you to reincorporate in a way they can have ownership.
VCs are a cancer. They want to spread and grow, at any cost.
There’s a lot of information missing. All of his problems were caused by VC? Why did he raise VC if he had 7 figure revenue? 5 years explained in 6 paragraphs. I agree that hiring bigco people for a startup is a mistake, but otherwise you can’t learn anything here.
You think you need to bring the tenured exec in with all of the industry contacts, but they are often a terrible cultural fit or experienced in the last iteration of your industry. They also want to hire under them rather than work the tools themselves and do this bait and switch after you’ve hired them.
You are then stuck with high salaries for ineffective people or an expensive and disruptive exit.
VCs also seem to push these people onto you as they think that is what constitutes a real company and/or they want a nice gig for their friends.
It was making 7 figures and now it's worth $0? If the investments from VC didn't lead to anything, wouldn't the company still make 7 figures anyway and shouldn't it be possible to continue as it is?
yeah def not the whole story being told. this wouldve at least been a nice acquihire for somebody if it were a valuable business. if this founder ran a 7 figure business into the ground with no cash shortage pressure he cant blame VCs for that.
A little frustrated by the ambiguity of the $100M in the post. Is that capital raised, ARR, GMV? Makes a big difference in terms of understanding what kind of business they built.
I'd guess it's valuation. He raised once at $1M (F&F probably). Then raised. Then some time post-raise low 7-figs in revenue => $3-4M, and $10M in the bank. Raised $20M at $100M perhaps? Seems reasonable, 25x-30x revenue.
It makes sense. If he got there quick, his product was working, and it had a chance at gold. Ultimately, lots of ways for startup to fail and failing-to-scale is one of them.
Well, he knows there's PMF at a small market now. He can try again without the large raise if he wants to run a lifestyle business.
It must be valuation (if there's a SaaS company that's ever gone from $0 -> $100MM ARR -> $0 within five years I would be very surprised).
But that makes this whole thing pretty circular—they only would have $100MM valuation because they sold a story of growth to investors. Assuming that the round at $100M valuation was during the boom times of 2019-2021, that could have been with as little as $3-5M annual revenue (20-25x multiplier).
Assuming slow or no growth, a company with $3M in revenue would be worth <$15M.
In that reddit post, he says "I had over $10m in the bank for a startup of 5 people making low 7 figures from well established and extremely happy customers."
You are right: low 7 figures = $3-$5M annual revenue
> Imagine you hire someone to scale an area and their solution is to divide that area into 5 sub areas and hire someone for each of them to figure it out, etc. that’s their solution.
At the point right before taking VC money, what's the safer alternative sources for cash? This is a serious question. The alternative I've seen work is another company in the same field make the investment with an option to further invest or acquire the company later on. Their expectations for growth were a lot more "down to earth".
You could take traditional small business loans or other types of simple credit, try crowd sourced funding (kickstarter), or just build shit without much or any funding (bootstrap).
Some VC firms are willing to work with less growth potential.
The problem is those VC firms are much harder to get started with.
After all the whole schtick of the VCs complained about in OP is to fund tons companies and make so much money off the unicorns that it doesn't matter how many fail.
Honestly though there is one upside to VC money: it also caps your losses. Most forms of debt for a small company rely on you being a creditor meaning you can be in the hole if your company fails.
Overall getting money is hard and nuanced which makes sense given there is nearly infinite demand for it.
I would have preferred to see this written as a blog post, there's nothing that requires anonymity imo if presented the right way, and it would make it more credible. As is it's believable and certainly reinforces stereotypes I have but it's not super helpful, as in it's just an outline of stuff people already think.
Not everything is meant literally. When he says they ended up with $0 doesn't have to be $0, just hugely down and nearly worthless compared to before that was doing well.
In the same way $100M could just have been $99M or even $80M, and then $0 they started with could just as well have been $20K in savings he invested.
I don't think the VCs are to blame at all. This is a one sided story but that side already gives off so many signals of not being cut out for the job that it isn't surprising to see them heaping the blame on another party. If you're the CEO and you are looking for capital you don't do that whilst giving the capital providers a mandate to run your company by proxy. That's on him. If VCs tell you to do 'X' and you don't agree you're well within your rights as CTO to tell them to shove it. (But more politely, of course.)
It's probably more reasonable to say "Not all the blame is on the VC". I've seen VCs, rich guys in their fifties with a lot of swagger, put unreasonable pressure on young padawan entrepreneurs to take more capital to grow faster than necessary. Then they over extended and it started failing apart. The entrepreneurs are ultimately responsible for taking the cash, but the power dynamic is such that the VCs surely deserve some blame for pressuring inexperienced entrepreneurs into biting off more than they could swallow.
They don't own the company though. If you're raising 10 million on a 100 million dollar valuation, there's no way that VCs own the majority. There really is no reason to listen to anything they say.
(1) "I was told to hire a lot of people. Put fuel on the fire they said. Bring industry experts who can move the needle. All this BS you hear all day. All failed. I hired VPs and bloated my payroll. Ultimately I ended up with a bunch of highly paid employees who don’t know how to do anything but to “build and lead amazing teams.” Imagine you hire someone to scale an area and their solution is to divide that area into 5 sub areas and hire someone for each of them to figure it out, etc. that’s their solution."
(2) "I ended up focusing my efforts on hiring and ramping up those VPs and dealing with their dumb ideas instead of focusing on my 3 core tenants: build, sell, and deliver."