I watched The Social Network recently. I didn't realize how much progress was made before Mark Zuckerberg decided to go after capital, with an urge from Sean Parker. Once Peter Thiel wrote the $500k check, at a $4.9M valuation, it was pure rocket fuel. It wasn’t to build the product or to get their first school. The product was already flying off the shelves. Leads me to wonder if a lot of modern founders are just weaker. Lots, myself included, want more funding, at a higher valuation, for less progress made. And that has seemed to become normalized. What gives?
Discussion about this post
No posts
Hey Mat,
First off, great piece!
I think all three options hold some weight, leaning very heavily towards Other which I picked because, as you aptly captured in your title, times are different.
I'd rank the three options in order of accuracy from top to bottoms as follows:
1. Other: Times are different.
2. Zuck is that good.
3. Modern founders are weaker.
The fact that the number of Founders & Investors today has increased significantly is the underlying factor beneath each poll option.
I'd love to connect directly. Let's chat!
Bomi.
Zuck is that good (he coded the entire first version himself) and modern founders have a simple view of founding a company.
The way new founders think things go:
Raise money -> Build team -> Build product -> Iterate/Find PMF -> Raise Money
The way most successful technical product founders launch companies:
Build product -> Iterate/Find PMF -> Build founding team -> Raise Money