Most Startups Aren’t Crap

VCs say the darndest things. 

Mostly, their jabs and knocks against founders and others VCs are kept behind closed doors. But, occasionally, they’re aired publicly. In the national press.

Like this little gem:

Right now, most of the things VCs have funded are mostly crap and largely worthless.

The cynical reading of this might be that every other VC, save for Chamath’s, is funding crappy startups. 

But, there’s another way to think about this brash comment that might be more constructive; namely, this:

VC is crap for most startups.

This shouldn’t come as a surprise. Or even be controversial. 

The data is pretty clear. And tho we celebrate the .07% of VC backed companies who’ve reached Unicorn status, we often dismiss the remaining 99.93% as collateral damage on the road Disruptiontown.

And that’s too bad.

Many of those failed startups represented sincere aspirations from founders to put their own unique dent in the universe. What they’d hoped would be a painkiller in raising VC money to solve some short term challenge around hiring, or sales or growth quickly turns into a gateway drug. And VC money is a powerfully addictive substance.

As with drugs, and as the data highlights, VC money tends to ruin far more companies than it saves. 

Rather than heaping blame on “crappy” startups for diverting precious VC dollars from the truly worthy agents of disruption, perhaps VCs should get real about the crappy product they’re offering startups. 

Now, that’s a Vanity Fair article I’d like to read.