The Danger of Being Default Alive

Re:The Danger of Being Default Alive by derefr on Thursday November 17, 2016 @09:27PM (#12983823)

On a more egalitarian note, the VC also wants the loser companies to die 1. so that their founders can be freed up to found other, non-loser startups, that they can then invest in (a pivot is just as good as such a default); and 2. so that their talent can be freed up, and then fed to other startups in their portfolio, to give them better chances of wildly succeeding.

In a VC's eyes, a "zombie" isn't just a time-sink; it's a prison holding back good founders and employees from doing other things.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Danger of Being Default Alive by danieltillett on Friday November 18, 2016 @03:37AM (#12985282)

I know you are having a go at the VCs, but you do make a good point. If good founders are wasting their time on "zombie" companies then the VCs should put their money where their mouth is and back the founders before they kill the zombie. They should be saying if you kill the current company I will put x million into your next company.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Danger of Being Default Alive by Animats on Friday November 18, 2016 @01:23PM (#12988878)

"They should be saying if you kill the current company I will put x million into your next company."

If the VCs are not the sole owners of the company, that will get them a lawsuit from the other investors for breach of duty as a director. Often the VCs don't have the authority to kill the company.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Danger of Being Default Alive by danieltillett on Friday November 18, 2016 @04:03PM (#12990053)

I was not suggesting that they be so explicit about it, but the VCs could have a general policy that they will always back founders in their next venture if the founders create a profitable company. The founders knowing this will kill or hand over the zombies themselves.

[ Parent | on HN ]