[ivankirigin]

But he loses credibility to anyone paying attention. This isn't some press hit to get users. His goal should be to make people think he is a good partner, and even if his point was valid, his approach doesn't help.

Do I really want an investor who enjoys controversy?

Note that pure controversy isn't the same thing as saying something you think is true that makes others uncomfortable. That is what PG's essay did, along with many others of his. That is what makes PG good: incisive ideas.

[salimmadjd]

Ivan - I think Dave already explained himself really well. But what I have noticed about Dave is that he thinks founders don't push the boundary enough and take enough chances to market their company. Case in point I was giving Dave ride one night (long story) and he was exchanging emails with a founder of a newly funded company. I was able to guess the company, and what I gather from Dave was that the founder/CEO was being a bit cautious against his recommendation. I think Dave's post is very much inline with his philosophy and his brand. Perhaps this is his way of winnowing the hustlers. Basically, if you dig his approach then perhaps you share a bit of DNA with him.

[davemc500hats]

ivan: i don't think i was creating or enjoying controversy.

there's no controversy in clarifying differences between 500 & YC, that's just simple transparency.

my goal was to clarify and differentiate 500 in the eyes of potential future founders, and perhaps some press and/or influencers who would carry that story to them as well.

don't really care whether i ruffle feathers from some folks as long as the message was loud & clear.

pretty sure i did that.

[ivankirigin]

> as long as the message was loud & clear

I actually do think there is a kernel of something interesting in your post, but the way you said it and a lot of your actual content got in the way.

First, PG was making an observation about the finances, but said "For better or worse that's never going to be more than a thought experiment. We could never stand it."

In other words, YC is like 500 with respect to mission and values.

Second, are your returns following a powerlaw? It seems like they are. So regardless of your strategy, the financial observation PG is making seems to apply to 500 as well.

In that context, "Screw Black Swans" doesn't belong in your title.

Separately, I'm pretty sure your international strategy is a stronger Black Swan strategy. That is actually a really interesting idea, but when couched in a needlessly contrarian post, it is lost.

Ironically, in developing my own strategy as I begin angel investing in earnest hopefully next year, I think we'd agree on a lot. What if the median investment had a 2X return instead of the typical (1/3 gone, 1/3 1X, 1/3 huge) distribution?