A simple heuristic that will save inexperienced startup founders from several different types of mistakes: be really cheap. This will save you from hiring too many people, from renting a fancy office, and from growing by buying users instead of making great things.
If you raise from VCs, most will pressure you to spend faster. Partly because, as money people, they think money solves problems. But partly for a more sinister reason: so they can buy more of the company when you burn through this money and need to raise more.
If you're a young founder, VCs have a powerful weapon to convince you to spend faster. They can tell you it's amateurish to be cheap. That you're thinking small. Don't listen to them. Most famous founders were cheap.
It's hard to think of a YC company that was killed by being too cheap. But the number killed by spending too much seems endless.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I have a file of notes about essays I might write in the future. Typically I'll have about a paragraph about each. I was curious how long the file was. 1792 lines!
In practice this file is practically write-only. When I have an idea for an essay but don't have time to write it (e.g. because I'm in the middle of another) I make a note of it in the file. But I pretty much never go back and read them.
That's not to say that I don't write the essays described in the file though. I often do. But not because I found them by scrolling through the file. I just ended up thinking about the same topic again.
Want to start a startup doing eye-tracking? If so I'd be interested in funding it. A friend of mine has ALS and can only move his eyes. He has an eye-controlled keyboard, but it's not very good. Can you make him a better one?
The reason this is worth doing as a startup is that I think eye-tracking may turn out to have broader applications than it currently does. It may even be a component of the next form factor in computing, the nature of which is still strangely unclear.
You have to be based in the Bay Area for me to fund you, because I want my friend to be your initial guinea pig. He's up for it. And he has a technical background, so he'll understand when the early versions don't work.
When you talk to more established founders, there's a common theme: late-stage investors pull some nasty shit. Once you get past series B you should stop optimizing for investors who can help you and switch to optimizing for ones who won't knife you if things go bad.
One reason late stage investors behave so badly is that they're not worried about reputational damage the way seed and series A investors are. But YC may be able to make them start to worry. YC keeps a list of who's done what. Eventually that will affect their deal flow.
Ultimately the best solution is to be profitable and not to need these later rounds. Then if you do choose to raise them you can do it on terms where the late stage investors have no power.
When I'm trying to help founders find new startup ideas, I usually start by trying to figure out what's unusual about them. What do they know or care about that few other people do? There's usually something, and it often leads to an idea.
If this new idea was already inside them, why hadn't it bubbled to the surface? Two reasons: they didn't realize what was unusual about them, and they discounted it as a source of ideas.
One reason people discount their unusual qualities as a source of ideas is that they think of them as random, or even weaknesses. But even apparent weaknesses can be sources of ideas.
Talked to a programmer today who said AI coding tools made him about 10x more productive. Though 10 seems like a round number, this was an attempt at a precise estimate.
If that kind of increase in productivity were the norm, it would make starting a startup qualitatively different, because you could do with 8 programmers what would have taken 80, and a company with 8 programmers is much easier to fund and run than one with 80.
Maybe 10x isn't in fact the norm now. It sounded on the high side to me. But if it isn't, just wait a year.
Observation suggests that people are switching to using ChatGPT to write things for them with almost indecent haste. Most people hate to write as much as they hate math. Way more than admit it. Within a year the median piece of writing could be by AI.
I warn you now, this is going to have unfortunate consequences, just as switching to living in suburbia and driving everywhere did. When you lose the ability to write, you also lose some of your ability to think.
I don't have the slightest hope of averting this switch. I often tell startups it's safe to bet on laziness, and this is one of the biggest bets on laziness in history. The switch is going to happen, and we won't know the consequences till it's too late.