[argonaut]

Essentially? That's really not what Quora is essentially. That's just how you've spun it.

Say what you will of the product, but the people originally behind Quora (and the people currently running Quora) did really great work at Facebook and had a reputation in SV for their brilliance. And they got their wealth because of the things they achieved at Facebook. So it's not surprising they were able to raise lots of money. VCs love investing in people who have track records of doing great things.

[ZenPro]

I have spun it truthfully.

I don't doubt the team are great engineers. That does not make Quora a great business, a viable business or even anything of value.

If you can pitch HN on why Quora matters then do it. Otherwise it is what I said - a bunch of people, well connected with SV who blagged a ton of cash with no way of making good on the promise.

[argonaut]

You are speaking with hindsight. At the time, if you truly put yourself objectively in the shoes of VCs, investing in the people behind Quora was a no-brainer.

If we pick apart your (more recent) characterization:

Yes, they're a bunch of people. Sure, they were well-connected in SV and they got a lot of cash. But you seem to imply their connections were undeserved (implication is in the tone: "rich mates", "a bunch of people"). Their connections were based on the previous engineering projects they had led successfully, their previous track record.

You only know that they had "no way of making good on the promise" in hindsight. And hindsight is 20/20. VCs aren't in the business of betting on sure things. But VCs love betting on people with track records of accomplishment. Nobody has a sure fire way of making good on any potentially-high-growth business idea.