|
|
|
|
|
by hippee-lee
4461 days ago
|
|
Not playing it safe doesn't mean you don't have a back up plan, right? Why does it have to be all one way or the other? The finance folks on Wall Street take big risks that get lots of press when they fail but they or their parent company also mitigate the risk. I'm not an entrepreneur, maybe a wanna be which is why I keep choosing start ups to work for. What I am curious about is why there is so much resistance to a balanced approach that doesn't require you to go all in without a plan for mitigating the risk your are taking on. I totally get not playing it safe, all the big names in tech seem to have done this and made fu money. But I'm not that smart and even less connected. (I suspect most folks on here lack the connections that the big names in tech had before they made their $ - I could very well be mistaken about this and it's importance to starting up and striking a jackpot) so, I don't get not having a plan that looks at the long term consequences for all the potentail outcomes and plans accordingly. I'm really interested in your feedback on this if you have the time. |
|
All sorts of schemes are possible; its not a no-brainer that a balanced approach is the best for everyone. In fact I'm certain its not.