Jessica (the author of this article) is too nice to give this article the clickbaity title it deserves: "The 3 things it takes to be a successful startup founder".
You seem to be refuting claims I never made. I'm simply perplexed that so many people don't know this market exists (as is indicated/suggested by the number of upvotes).
The person who was accused of "stealing customer data" was the other co-founder - not Adora (CEO & now YC partner).
If you actually look into the details of the matter, what happened was that the co-founder acquired the failed company as it was put through a bankruptcy process.
People who weren't privy to the process thought it was stealing when it really wasn't different from any other acquisition.
Worth noting that the proximate cause of death is often times largely uninformative as to why the startup actually failed.
Most failed startups fit into the following timeline:
was burning more money than it was making =>
failed at raising more money =>
did a round of layoffs / cost cuts to get economics under control =>
couldn't right the ship and shut down / did a fire sale or acquihire
But, the above timeline doesn't teach you much about why the company really failed. The real answer almost always involves a multitude of contributing factors, and requires intimate knowledge of the startup's business.
For the most part, the only reliable source for this type of information is one of the founders, board members, or (sometimes but not always) c-level execs. And, even then, they have to be willing to be vulnerable (which is very rare).
If I could give some advice to Failory, it would be to think about how you can incentivize founders to share their stories. As it stands, they have little to gain and potentially a lot to lose (e.g. being labeled one of YC's "biggest failures")
> I don't think it can be understated how much saying 'no politics' is a political statement.
I disagree, and I think you're grossly overstating it.
I can see how you could characterize their stance as "supporting the status quo". But, there are varying degrees of "support", and this is pretty much the lowest degree of "support" imaginable.
Put another way, you're painting this as "with us or against us" when in reality there's a spectrum of support. Coinbase is standing just SLIGHTLY off center in one direction.
> And supporting the status quo in this political climate is a strange hill to plant your flag on.
Why do you think it's strange? The vast majority of employees prefer a work environment that is stripped of political conversation. And, such an environment is more conducive to focus and productivity.
Based on the precedent set by Uber, Waymo will be held financially responsible, but won't face criminal charges. I'd be interested in reading more about the liability insurance coverage Waymo has for its self-driving program, but can't find info anywhere.
You bring up many good points, none of which I strongly disagree with.
My only point was that it's not "easy and obvious" to "buy his debt and use it as leverage to extract political gain". There are many "outs" he can take if such an event occurred.
> There is no change in the value of the company. There are fewer shares outstanding though which means each existing share is worth more.
The company's value decreases by the buyback amount. Share price (ignoring positive signalling impact) remains unchanged.
E.g. Company has $100 market cap with 10 outstanding shares at $10/share. Company does $10 buyback. Afterwards, company has $90 market cap with 9 outstanding shares at $10/share.
My guess is that this advice of "raise less money" is a result of hanging around too many successful founders.
That is, if you talk to successful founders, they will generally wish they raised less money (due to dilution).
And, if you talk to failed founders, they will generally wish they raised more money (to increase likelihood of true PMF).
Also, I think that fear is a useful mental state when there is real and imminent danger. In startup land, you are right to be fearful, because you are much more likely to die than stay alive.
If you don't have the luxury of unlimited shots at success (due to a lackluster safety net or other life goals), it makes sense to maximize the likelihood of success in your current venture. There is a lot of "startup cost" to working on a new idea, and in a lot of fields, you will eventually succeed if you just stay alive/don't die.