Hacker News Reader

Did anyone really need this explained? I think anyone questioning this is trying to be a chicken and just grousing about the status quo.

I mean, if they aren't willing to commit big-time, why should a VC?

View on HN

As the first paragraph of TFA points out, the VC is always a chicken. They're not "committing big-time" so that appeal falls flat. If someone wants to take a risk because their partner is taking a risk that's fine, but anyone who takes a risk because a VC will be a little put out otherwise is a sucker who has over-delegated responsibility for making strategy decisions about their company. True pigs won't turn chicken around VCs. ;) They'll take the risk of displeasing a VC along with all of the other risks mentioned.

A sizable chunk of cash is a big commitment. And if they aren't risking a sizable chunk, they aren't worth dealing with.

the same amount of money has different 'utility' for different people. losing $10K, a poor guy loses more that a VC losing $1M. it's not that a guy won't be able to buy the next porsche.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com