Rendered at 23:19:52 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
satvikpendem 2 hours ago [-]
More and more I see why bootstrapping is the way to go. And especially in this SaaSpocalypse with AI companies commoditizing entire companies with new feature releases like Claude Design or Codex for legal, it's better to just run your little corner of the Internet and make sustainable money over hyperscaling with millions and billions and being put out of business the next week.
One might say why bootstrappers won't get erased too but they can carve out a specific market too small for AI companies to want to touch, and still remain sustainable rather than needing to make a ton of money; and pivoting as a venture backed company can be much harder as there are more people to please like investors and your employees which you likely have more of than a bootstrapper.
tty456 2 hours ago [-]
I hear story #1 periodically, but almost never see a quote. How is this stuff said specifically? It always seems like hearsay.
I'm sure it's authentic, but I'd love to hear the details on how that stuff is actually said in conversation.
chasebank 11 minutes ago [-]
I came across this thread on twitter this morning but isn't he the CEO / co-founder and he's clearly a man? I guess I don't get the reference. I know he has a co-founder who's a female, maybe she was lead at the time?
"1. A Sequoia partner passed on Cloudflare because he didn’t think a woman could lead a security infrastructure company. Seriously. "
malshe 55 minutes ago [-]
Someone asked him this down the thread. He replied that it was said to him. So it’s a first party account.
tty456 13 minutes ago [-]
It's interesting he provides quotes for the other stories, but not this one. And still doesn't in the thread. Again, i'm not debating the authenticity, but is it possible he's inferring that based on something not-so-explicit being said?
I'd love to see/hear the words that people actually say when I hear stories like "they said they wouldn't [invest/buy/etc] from me because i'm a woman".
jphil529 2 hours ago [-]
Really sad that people are still walking around with those beliefs.
flawn 1 hours ago [-]
The fact that you hear this often (also not only from the victims of this) should signal that, even without quotes, there is likely some truth to it.
ohyoutravel 46 minutes ago [-]
This doesn’t follow logically.
stevepotter 3 hours ago [-]
All I ever hear are horror stories. Can someone tell me a good story about VC that isn't Facebook or something?
mitchellh 3 hours ago [-]
As with all things, the horror stories just get the most attention. People love to rage. There are plenty of boring (good, even!) VCs out there. They just work more quietly, professionally.
I'll share a story, but its about a close friend and not me so I won't name any explicit actors and I'm going to round out the numbers. You either trust me or you don't, but this is a very direct relationship I have to both the founder and VC.
The story is this: the founder started their company outside of SV, so the lawyers weren't super familiar with startups and messed up the initial incorporation and stock plan stuff (actually super common: use Stripe Atlas or pay a startup-aware lawyer!). Went under the radar through years. This company ended up being bought for nearly $1B (with a B) after many rounds and a large board.
During the legal work to close the acquisition, they found out this messed up stock plan. Without going into the details, the effect was that instead of taking home $200M, the founder would take home ~$75M. The mistake the lawyer made almost a decade earlier was about to cost him $125M.
Most of the board basically said "too bad so sad, law is law." But one VC (the one I know, the one I'm talking about) basically strong armed and politicked the whole thing and eventually convinced everyone around the table to give up an equal share of their own holdings to make the founder whole.
Letter to the law: they didn't have to.
Spirit of being founder friendly: this VC went to bat hard and got everyone to yield to make things "right."
Also, look, you might argue $75M vs $200M is just "rich vs rich." Who cares? Sure. That's not the point.
You don't hear about stuff like this because honestly its not a big enough deal and feel good stories get way less clicks than pitchfork stories.
ChrisMarshallNY 2 hours ago [-]
Thanks for that story.
I feel as if basic Personal Integrity is now considered an anachronistic weakness, in the tech industry, and it's heartbreaking. I know that VCs can probably share similar stories [to the OP] about some of the people that pitched them, or their behavior, after getting funded.
Lotta ass, being shown, all around.
At some point in the future, I may consider smaller-scale (local) angel investing, but it seems like such an ugly field, not sure if I'll ever do it. I don't need the money; I would do it to help folks get a leg up.
thadt 2 hours ago [-]
Right - and if I ever go to raise VC then that's a guy I'll want to talk to. Even if they themselves don't invest, their recommendation would be valuable.
Life's too short to screw people over - reputation is one of the few things that last after we're gone.
53 minutes ago [-]
wenbin 3 hours ago [-]
This is awesome!
jwatzman 2 hours ago [-]
My prospective co-founders and I were pitching to a VC firm that was, on paper, a really good fit for what we were trying to do. The partner we were pitching to was, 15 years ago, briefly my manager's manager -- some work relationship there, she remembered me and I her, but we didn't work super closely together and it had been a very long time. She had moved on at that company to more big-shot things and ultimately become a partner at a respectable VC firm.
About 10 minutes into the pitch, she cut us off, and basically said -- as absolutely kindly as something like this can be directly said -- "I am not going to invest in this, and furthermore I don't think what you're trying to do is investible at all". Then she took a bunch of her time to run us through why, help us understand some very fundamental things about the VC world we didn't quite have right, and generally be brutal but extremely useful in us framing what we were trying to do.
She didn't have to do that. She could have nodded along and then given us a polite "no" like everyone else. She could have cut us off and given us a rude "no". But she didn't -- she made sure to use the time we had to help us as much as she could, even if she very adamantly was not going to invest.
Not a big gesture or anything, but kind and helpful. There's a lot of that. But it doesn't make headlines.
Aurornis 3 hours ago [-]
The non-horror stories are usually pretty boring: VC heard the pitch, then either passed politely or wanted to be part of the round. If they joined, they wrote a check and wanted updates.
The VC landscape has changed a lot since some of these stories happened. Many years ago, there were few VCs and even good companies had a hard time getting funding. This created weird environments with some VCs raised funds and then liked having companies crawl to them to beg for the money.
There are still some VCs like that, but there has been an explosion of VC funds and money. Most VCs know they need to work hard to earn the trust of founders that they want to invest in. Leaving a bad impression could mean you're left out of the next round if you want it.
This goes against the popular idea of VCs, but most VCs I've worked with are actually pretty boring, normal, nice people.
sskates 2 hours ago [-]
I believe Eric Vishria is the best Series A board member of this generation. I've learned more from him about it what it means to be a great CEO over the last 10 years than anyone else. I haven't heard of another founder who has spoken as highly as their Series A investor.
I've been meaning to write up my story with him. Now is a great time with all the horror stories on others that have been coming out.
There are tons and tons of mundane VC stories. They all mostly just go "we came, we presented, we were funded"
troyvit 2 hours ago [-]
Tony Conrad [1] was the VC that guided our related content engine (Sphere: a vector database before vector databases were cool) through a $25 million exit. Chump change these days but he took really good care of us, leading us through a global recession and then two acquisitions.
Casey Aylward from Accel has been mentioned in all void0 company posts. So she must have been very useful for the founder. (I don't have any insider information about void0, I've met her a few times and she is amazing)
I was just an engineer at a vc backed startup but our interactions with the VCs were totally normal - they were no better or worse than when we worked with publishers or other external funding sources.
trumpdong 3 hours ago [-]
The best possible case is that you get a cash infusion now in exchange for giving up a huge percentage of your future revenue and control of the company.
joshu 3 hours ago [-]
i raised twice from USV. class acts all around. too many stories to count, but they always had my back.
cyberax 2 hours ago [-]
Sure. They are usually just very boring: you made a pitch, got funded. The VCs used their connections to get you good advisors and/or introduce you to prospective clients.
cowthulhu 3 hours ago [-]
#3 is insane, if for no other reason than the VC is signaling that he’s likely going to try and do the same thing to you some day… even if you were totally willing to screw over your team, why would you ever get involved with that VC given you’ll then have to watch your back until the end of time?
cryzinger 3 hours ago [-]
I think a lot of people fail to recognize that they're the next target, or convince themselves they're special in some way that makes them immune. It's like when someone knowingly participates in an affair and tells themselves "Sure, they're cheating on their current partner to be with me, but after they break things off I know we'll be together forever!"
CPLX 2 hours ago [-]
Some people really do thrive on this shit though. They know the rules of the game and want to play it. What they’re really thinking is they’ll be better at the game than their opponents.
I mean can you actually imagine the internal monologue of a guy like Sam Altman?
raverbashing 2 hours ago [-]
Yup, exactly this
For example, if you go off with the cheating partner, don't expect it to not happen again
toxic 2 hours ago [-]
Because if you get involved with most VCs, you will then have to watch your back until the end of time.
None of those "worst experiences" seem all that unusual to me (though nobody will say #1 out loud anymore until after they've invested), and #3 is completely in character for Vinod.
root-parent 1 hours ago [-]
If one partner is the core of the company, and the others the VC thinks are useless ( I am not saying in this case they were...just that the VC might have that perception) what should the VC do?
After all its just business decisions like Cloudflare recent layoffs no?
If they truly are useless that's one thing, but the ability to "impress" some asshole in a 30 minute pitch has little to do with running a successful tech company.
With what authority are VCs claiming to be capable of being an accurate judge of talent or character in less than an hour?
Sounds like said VC in your example is doing insufficient due diligence and just investing based on vibes.
segmondy 53 minutes ago [-]
something pattern something matching something
sunjieming 2 hours ago [-]
Yeah, this is par for the course with VC. You should never believe your VC (even post funding) is your friend. They can be a great business partner and resource but they're never your friend under that dynamic
htrp 31 minutes ago [-]
there is a saying about mixing business with pleasure
darth_avocado 3 hours ago [-]
Because rich and powerful people also have massive egos to go with their power and money. Some of them will find your rejection a personal attack and try to actively sabotage you. Not all VCs are like that, but there are enough of them that you need to be careful about how you handle the situation.
Bob459105 2 hours ago [-]
[dead]
wheels 2 hours ago [-]
I had the same thing happen (though seed round). I don't think it's uncommon. Also never took another meeting with the guy.
tehwebguy 2 hours ago [-]
omfg that’s the beach access guy
foobarbecue 2 hours ago [-]
ugh. That douchebag doesn't even surf.
wslh 2 hours ago [-]
Sadly, I've experienced this myself, and I'm aware of other people who were cut off from opportunities in similar ways. I applaud the tweet because this is important to say out loud: we are often not living in the world we think we are observing. Many people know this, but few talk about it. It's an open secret.
3 hours ago [-]
TrackerFF 2 hours ago [-]
My pet theory is that it is more nurture than nature. These (VC) veterans have seen thousands of startups come and go, and become so desensitized to the ruthlessness.
Of course to people like the author, it seems borderline sociopathic to casually suggest such levels of betrayal. It is like trying to get into the most exclusive nightclubs, and when you're finally in the front, the bouncer will look at the group and say "You can get in, but not those two". It sucks, but to the bouncer it is just business as usual, and you're just another face.
lovich 45 minutes ago [-]
Nah, he was talking about taking their stock. That’s morally theft even if by some convoluted reason it’s not legally theft.
I get the business as usual analogy but the specifics of the interaction are different. You just showing up to your club with your friends is different than having equity in a company you cofounded.
carefulfungi 1 hours ago [-]
I doubt VCs have different distribution of personal character from other professional groups.
In my experience, a more interesting friction is that VCs are pursuing a diversification strategy while founders are pursing a singleton strategy.
ajb 9 minutes ago [-]
It used to be that VCs wanted founders to pursue a singleton strategy, because they wanted the diversification to occur at the level of their portfolio - on the grounds that at the level of an individual startup, diversification would less likely to succeed. The catchphrase was that they wanted "pure play" investments. So it would be interesting to know why it's now a cause of friction. (The "pure play" thing was actually from before YC took off and gave founders a bit more agency; and before the "pivot" was popularised; I get the impression that VCs back then were not too happy for a founder to change direction and confuse their portfolio)
mattas 23 minutes ago [-]
VCs are the shotgun cartridge and startups are the shot.
giancarlostoro 3 hours ago [-]
The first I heard of Cloudflare was a recommendation from someone who used to DDoS websites (and yes they've been arrested for related crimes, long story), and I thought "what the heck is Cloudflare" then over the coming years, I kept seeing other friends using it. It's really interesting that Cloudflare was able to pop into a market that Akamai could have snagged for themselves or outright tried to buy out Cloudflare.
It's a bit crazy in hindsight that companies would have avoided investing, considering this is a space someone like Akamai occupied, and clearly there is value in this space. It's incredible to see how Cloudflare has grown over the years, kind of happy they grew as much as they did, a bit surprised by some of those VC nightmare scenarios.
snowwrestler 2 hours ago [-]
Cloudflare is fantastic at marketing, and pretty good at technology. I evaluated them twice for enterprise contracts and both times picked a competitor. The first time, it was DosArrest for DDOS protection, which was a much better value per dollar (but they sucked at marketing.) The second time, we needed a CDN with particular features and Fastly was a better fit.
My point is that it’s very very hard to know in advance that a startup is going to be awesome at marketing. Their tech was not, on its own, a giant moat or a “must have” standout. So I can see why some VCs shrugged.
jaggederest 2 hours ago [-]
And as someone who briefly had to interact with Akamai, the deficiencies in their product are not even close to subtle.
raverbashing 2 hours ago [-]
Sounds like how WeWork ate Regus's lunch even while being made of crazy
jaggederest 53 minutes ago [-]
That's a remarkably well-called shot, honestly, damn, wish I thought of that!
swyx 3 hours ago [-]
theres always a story behind the story. wondering why he chose today to say these
k099 2 hours ago [-]
Greg Isenberg's viral tweet about VC that fell asleep during a pitch kicked off a bunch of other tweets about weird VC experiences this week:
Well he did retweet another tweet that kickstarted the convo, very possible he saw that tweet, said to himself "I have some of these to share!" and then proceeded to... do so.
mitchellh 3 hours ago [-]
probably just been long enough that he doesn't give a shit
source: most of the bullshit i surface up nowadays
3 hours ago [-]
hn_throwaway_99 1 hours ago [-]
After reading some of these stories, I don't see how you can't come away thinking that psychopathy is a trait that goes hand in hand with being a successful VC. The story about Vinod Khosla speaks for itself, but after reading #2 I clicked on Marc Andreesen's twitter profile, which currently says this:
> You’re not talking to someone who woke up a loser. That loser attitude, that loser premise makes no sense to me.
These fuckers are grotesque caricatures in human skin.
teaearlgraycold 1 hours ago [-]
If you're not aware that's actually a quote from Jensen Huang.
Quarrelsome 3 hours ago [-]
These VC stories continue to feed my incredulity at how people _that_ incompetent can still be _that_ wealthy.
Is it the money that makes them stupid or smth?
boelboel 2 hours ago [-]
Getting extreme wealth is more so about luck in various forms than competence/intelligence. If it were just about the latter everyone who's intelligent/competent would be rich. You don't hear about boring wealthy people either.
rwmj 3 hours ago [-]
Why do you think people who lucked into vast riches by being in the right place at the right time would be especially smarter than anyone else?
itkovian_ 2 hours ago [-]
In many cases the GPs are not, at least nowhere near as much as you’d think. Obviously there are power laws here as well. Non partners, forget about it.
The other thing is it is maybe the most nepotistic industry out there. Which somewhat makes sense given the actual job is so relationship based.
jaggederest 2 hours ago [-]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affinity_fraud among other factors - being someone who talks right and plays metaphorical ball with the correct people matters more than any amount of intelligence or competence.
wahnfrieden 3 hours ago [-]
Competence, intelligence, merit have little connection to wealth. Wealth at that level is attained through arguably unfair means, not from reward for hard work. Conversely, poor people are not poor as punishment for lack of intelligence or merit
2 hours ago [-]
fg137 2 hours ago [-]
Did the author edit the tweet/post or am I crazy? There are only two stories
bagels 2 hours ago [-]
For some reason they're not threaded on the twitter link, but you can see them threaded on the xcancel link:
The third is in a reply. Use the XCancel link to view it without logging in.
AndrewKemendo 3 hours ago [-]
I could write a book with the horror stories I have of VC and LP behavior, and some of the wild stuff I’ve either been asked to do, verified others were asked to do or say it’s just totally unhinged.
I don’t know if Angel investing groups are really still around like they were in there 2010s but the variance in the types of insanity and weirdness for those groups is really unmatched.
One might say why bootstrappers won't get erased too but they can carve out a specific market too small for AI companies to want to touch, and still remain sustainable rather than needing to make a ton of money; and pivoting as a venture backed company can be much harder as there are more people to please like investors and your employees which you likely have more of than a bootstrapper.
"1. A Sequoia partner passed on Cloudflare because he didn’t think a woman could lead a security infrastructure company. Seriously. "
I'd love to see/hear the words that people actually say when I hear stories like "they said they wouldn't [invest/buy/etc] from me because i'm a woman".
I'll share a story, but its about a close friend and not me so I won't name any explicit actors and I'm going to round out the numbers. You either trust me or you don't, but this is a very direct relationship I have to both the founder and VC.
The story is this: the founder started their company outside of SV, so the lawyers weren't super familiar with startups and messed up the initial incorporation and stock plan stuff (actually super common: use Stripe Atlas or pay a startup-aware lawyer!). Went under the radar through years. This company ended up being bought for nearly $1B (with a B) after many rounds and a large board.
During the legal work to close the acquisition, they found out this messed up stock plan. Without going into the details, the effect was that instead of taking home $200M, the founder would take home ~$75M. The mistake the lawyer made almost a decade earlier was about to cost him $125M.
Most of the board basically said "too bad so sad, law is law." But one VC (the one I know, the one I'm talking about) basically strong armed and politicked the whole thing and eventually convinced everyone around the table to give up an equal share of their own holdings to make the founder whole.
Letter to the law: they didn't have to.
Spirit of being founder friendly: this VC went to bat hard and got everyone to yield to make things "right."
Also, look, you might argue $75M vs $200M is just "rich vs rich." Who cares? Sure. That's not the point.
You don't hear about stuff like this because honestly its not a big enough deal and feel good stories get way less clicks than pitchfork stories.
I feel as if basic Personal Integrity is now considered an anachronistic weakness, in the tech industry, and it's heartbreaking. I know that VCs can probably share similar stories [to the OP] about some of the people that pitched them, or their behavior, after getting funded.
Lotta ass, being shown, all around.
At some point in the future, I may consider smaller-scale (local) angel investing, but it seems like such an ugly field, not sure if I'll ever do it. I don't need the money; I would do it to help folks get a leg up.
Life's too short to screw people over - reputation is one of the few things that last after we're gone.
About 10 minutes into the pitch, she cut us off, and basically said -- as absolutely kindly as something like this can be directly said -- "I am not going to invest in this, and furthermore I don't think what you're trying to do is investible at all". Then she took a bunch of her time to run us through why, help us understand some very fundamental things about the VC world we didn't quite have right, and generally be brutal but extremely useful in us framing what we were trying to do.
She didn't have to do that. She could have nodded along and then given us a polite "no" like everyone else. She could have cut us off and given us a rude "no". But she didn't -- she made sure to use the time we had to help us as much as she could, even if she very adamantly was not going to invest.
Not a big gesture or anything, but kind and helpful. There's a lot of that. But it doesn't make headlines.
The VC landscape has changed a lot since some of these stories happened. Many years ago, there were few VCs and even good companies had a hard time getting funding. This created weird environments with some VCs raised funds and then liked having companies crawl to them to beg for the money.
There are still some VCs like that, but there has been an explosion of VC funds and money. Most VCs know they need to work hard to earn the trust of founders that they want to invest in. Leaving a bad impression could mean you're left out of the next round if you want it.
This goes against the popular idea of VCs, but most VCs I've worked with are actually pretty boring, normal, nice people.
I've been meaning to write up my story with him. Now is a great time with all the horror stories on others that have been coming out.
He sticks through his companies for over a decade, which is rare in this business: https://x.com/ericvishria/status/2051459386372149506
[1] https://about.me/tonyconrad
https://voidzero.dev/posts/voidzero-cloudflare#acknowledgeme...
I mean can you actually imagine the internal monologue of a guy like Sam Altman?
For example, if you go off with the cheating partner, don't expect it to not happen again
None of those "worst experiences" seem all that unusual to me (though nobody will say #1 out loud anymore until after they've invested), and #3 is completely in character for Vinod.
After all its just business decisions like Cloudflare recent layoffs no?
https://blog.cloudflare.com/building-for-the-future/
With what authority are VCs claiming to be capable of being an accurate judge of talent or character in less than an hour?
Sounds like said VC in your example is doing insufficient due diligence and just investing based on vibes.
Of course to people like the author, it seems borderline sociopathic to casually suggest such levels of betrayal. It is like trying to get into the most exclusive nightclubs, and when you're finally in the front, the bouncer will look at the group and say "You can get in, but not those two". It sucks, but to the bouncer it is just business as usual, and you're just another face.
I get the business as usual analogy but the specifics of the interaction are different. You just showing up to your club with your friends is different than having equity in a company you cofounded.
In my experience, a more interesting friction is that VCs are pursuing a diversification strategy while founders are pursing a singleton strategy.
It's a bit crazy in hindsight that companies would have avoided investing, considering this is a space someone like Akamai occupied, and clearly there is value in this space. It's incredible to see how Cloudflare has grown over the years, kind of happy they grew as much as they did, a bit surprised by some of those VC nightmare scenarios.
My point is that it’s very very hard to know in advance that a startup is going to be awesome at marketing. Their tech was not, on its own, a giant moat or a “must have” standout. So I can see why some VCs shrugged.
https://x.com/gregisenberg/status/2061794787825479818
Some QTs:
https://x.com/dunkhippo33/status/2062768969560510486 https://x.com/typesfast/status/2062791307094048937 https://x.com/awxjack/status/2062605286683336757 https://x.com/travisk/status/2062224472426365045 https://x.com/mark_cummins/status/2062293061426663612
source: most of the bullshit i surface up nowadays
> You’re not talking to someone who woke up a loser. That loser attitude, that loser premise makes no sense to me.
These fuckers are grotesque caricatures in human skin.
Is it the money that makes them stupid or smth?
The other thing is it is maybe the most nepotistic industry out there. Which somewhat makes sense given the actual job is so relationship based.
https://xcancel.com/eastdakota/status/2062860530360959273
I don’t know if Angel investing groups are really still around like they were in there 2010s but the variance in the types of insanity and weirdness for those groups is really unmatched.