If I ever run a fund I will also “defect” in this way, openly and notoriously. It’s a silly norm with grossly disproportionate consequences for pool of new GPs.
We don’t have it and wouldn’t impose it elsewhere in software industry, certainly not for VC funded companies.
We don’t have it and wouldn’t impose it elsewhere in software industry, certainly not for VC funded companies.
Why is the norm silly? Because presumably if you’ve convinced somebody to stake you with $100M you have convinced them that you are sufficiently financially competent to calculate the NPV of your career, which becomes heavily indexed on success of the fund.
Skin in the game.
Skin in the game.
Similar logic would apply to founders, incidentally, in some perverse universe where VCs wanted to see them suffer a bit more if the company failed.
“Where’s your skin in game?”
“Opportunity cost versus career track at Google is $N million. There, done.”
“Where’s your skin in game?”
“Opportunity cost versus career track at Google is $N million. There, done.”
For similar reasons a) funded companies should always pay founders sufficient wages to live on w/o hardship and b) even if you don’t need them (had an exit, spouse works, etc) take them anyhow to provide social cover to other founders in VC portfolio who do need them.
“If it turns out you don’t need it or strongly don’t want it, you can always give it away.” both a piece of advice I give a lot and one I suggest you steal if a friend ever has pushback against e.g. the advice to negotiate an offer.
