[waterlesscloud]

--VCs are going to read that as "You're a loser planning on losing."--

Then I'm going to read VCs investing in lots of companies as losers planning on losing.

VCs hedge their bets, almost by definition. What's wrong with founders doing the same?

I'm not really in favor of this particular proposal, but the idea of one-standard-for-you-another-for-me is a major turnoff.

[patio11]

If it isn't obvious, I'm not a VC and don't exactly swing that way either, I just try to have a mental model of them that approximates reality.

[zachalexander]

That's a great argument for proving that startup founders are a braver group of people than VCs.

It's a terrible argument, however, for convincing a VC to fund you.

[waterlesscloud]

When did founding a startup become about proving how brave you are? That seems like a very poor standard of evaluation.

All else being equal, it seems to me that a founder with a smart approach to managing risk is a better bet than one who is reckless about it.

[zachalexander]

> When did founding a startup become about proving how brave you are?

It's not. What I was trying to say (perhaps unclearly) is it seems like you're arguing a moral point, that since VCs can diversify to reduce their risk, it's only fair that founders get to do the same.

And that's true. If you're founding a startup, and want to pool equity with other startups, nobody is going to prevent you. But VCs might be less inclined to fund you too.

So it's a question of what matters more to you -- taking more risk and perhaps getting more funding, or having less of both.

[diego]

The goals of VCs are very different than the goals of entrepreneurs. Their job is to return at least 3x cash-on-cash in 10 years with relatively low beta. Why should their standards be the same as those of entrepreneurs?

In fact, I wrote a blog post that's very relevant to this point:

http://diegobasch.com/traditional-vcs-and-first-time-entrepr...