[root-parent]

If one partner is the core of the company, and the others the VC thinks are useless ( I am not saying in this case they were...just that the VC might have that perception) what should the VC do?

After all its just business decisions like Cloudflare recent layoffs no?

https://blog.cloudflare.com/building-for-the-future/

[stackghost]

If they truly are useless that's one thing, but the ability to "impress" some asshole in a 30 minute pitch has little to do with running a successful tech company.

With what authority are VCs claiming to be capable of being an accurate judge of talent or character in less than an hour?

Sounds like said VC in your example is doing insufficient due diligence and just investing based on vibes.

[bartread]

I suppose one could argue that VCs develop a taste for it after speaking with so many founders.

But, of course, you often don’t find out what lay down the road not travelled, except for those companies that get funded elsewhere, so it’s not like there’s an obvious objective measure.

I can’t help wondering if it’s a bit like Moneyball though and, if you had good enough data that you could model it well enough, you’d discover a lot of that taste is just shooting bull and doesn’t amount to much. Possibly there’d be a lot of variability across VCs.

[root-parent]

>> the ability to "impress" some asshole in a 30 minute pitch has little to do with running a successful tech company.

Judging by the stories being shared here, that is all it takes to get funded...

[stackghost]

Sure but the act of actually securing VC funding is a small part of running a company. Those VCs are not going to recoup their investments if they pick people who optimize for funding and not for product vision and good leadership.

[recursive]

They have superior taste of course.

[segmondy]

something pattern something matching something