In particular, the definition of success (selling for more than $10m) seems a bit low for VC-backed startup companies and is a huge gap between that and Amazon-sized economy changing companies.
Maybe I'm stuck in the HN bubble, but $10m seems like a small amount for anyone who has taken post-seed funding, and those activities (registering in delaware, filing for patents, etc) seem totally expected if you're taking funding.
I guess the question I have is: are there a large chunk of non-venture funded companies who fit their criteria? Do those have any indication of leading to huge growth? If not, then these indicators seem to be just another way of finding those companies that took funding.
(Also, are you an economist? FiveThirtyEight's bio of you is pretty sparse.)
It's great to find some sophisticated analysis and content on the web, rather than more talking heads. Thanks for writing the article!
This research is still new, so there's no clear consensus yet. But so far the reception has been positive. The paper tries to get at a core question that's bedeviled economics recently: How is it possible that startups could be declining, given everything happening in SV? This is probably the most sophisticated answer so far. But it doesn't mean it's 100% correct.