Forbes 30U30 makes uniquely *zero* sense for VC.
I remember folks worrying about getting selected while I was a junior VC.
Hopefully, this has changed.
Because it is truly nonsensical, for several reasons.
Hopefully, this has changed.
Because it is truly nonsensical, for several reasons.
1. VC's feedback cycle is long
If you invest in a seed round, you won't know if the co's a "success" for years.
Sure, there will be proxy indications (up rounds), but these are often disconnected from real financial progress.
You don't know if you're good for a long time.
If you invest in a seed round, you won't know if the co's a "success" for years.
Sure, there will be proxy indications (up rounds), but these are often disconnected from real financial progress.
You don't know if you're good for a long time.
2. VC is about endurance not speed
The most impressive firms are those that have sustained great returns *over time.*
How fast you get off the mark really doesn't matter. It's like picking who the best marathon runner is by looking at who ran fastest for the 1st minute.
The most impressive firms are those that have sustained great returns *over time.*
How fast you get off the mark really doesn't matter. It's like picking who the best marathon runner is by looking at who ran fastest for the 1st minute.
3. Junior VCs (usually) don't make decisions
Some firms are exceptions. For the most part, JVCs aren't making a call as to whether a co should be funded or not.
Instead, they're sourcing.
It's much harder to ascertain judgment or ability to win deals as a result.
Some firms are exceptions. For the most part, JVCs aren't making a call as to whether a co should be funded or not.
Instead, they're sourcing.
It's much harder to ascertain judgment or ability to win deals as a result.
4. The selection process is hilariously biased
VC partners select the winners. Because this is an opportunity to promote their brand, they often select (or lobby to select) members of their own team.
People doing good work at smaller funds often don't get recognized.
VC partners select the winners. Because this is an opportunity to promote their brand, they often select (or lobby to select) members of their own team.
People doing good work at smaller funds often don't get recognized.
5. We should be wary of awards
This is a general point.
When media companies give out awards, they're looking for distribution. This a growth hack, not a rigorous reflection of who is "crushing it" and who isn't.
This is a general point.
When media companies give out awards, they're looking for distribution. This a growth hack, not a rigorous reflection of who is "crushing it" and who isn't.
6. Caveats
There are probably very small proportion of young VCs that have some genuine wins under their belt and are making decisions.
But the current 30U30 really doesn't select for them.
There are probably very small proportion of young VCs that have some genuine wins under their belt and are making decisions.
But the current 30U30 really doesn't select for them.
7. Disclaimer
The people that *do* get selected are often amazing! Those that I'm friends with are smart, lovely people. (So are many who don't win).
This is not meant as an attack on them. Rather a silly diatribe against the inanity of these awards.
The people that *do* get selected are often amazing! Those that I'm friends with are smart, lovely people. (So are many who don't win).
This is not meant as an attack on them. Rather a silly diatribe against the inanity of these awards.
8. Long-term vision
The best VCs under 30 I have met seem to give 0 f*cks about awards like this.
These are people obsessed with the *craft* of VC and honing it over time.
The clearest example is @aashaysanghvi_. Unbelievable.
The best VCs under 30 I have met seem to give 0 f*cks about awards like this.
These are people obsessed with the *craft* of VC and honing it over time.
The clearest example is @aashaysanghvi_. Unbelievable.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
