Comment by marcamillion | Hacker News Reader

Comment by marcamillion | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

For starters....maybe it is as a result of a difference in investment thesis?

The things I have heard him talk about, I can't imagine a YC company doing that. Not saying that they won't, and going forward that may be the case, but I can't recall ever hearing many/any YC company making synthetic beef, or new types of seed, or other stuff that I hear Vinod talking about all the time.

Now don't get me wrong, I am not saying that there are no YC companies that do these things. It's just that based on what I know, if there are any, it is a small subset.

From there, then it is about whether or not the company founders and Khosla Ventures work well together and see the big picture similarly. Not every company that is in an industry you invest in, will be suitable for you to invest in - for a variety of reasons.

So, if we were to be generous, I would say 5% of all YC companies would make up the total "investable pool" for Khosla Ventures. That's only 20 companies. From there....there is no telling why they haven't invested - e.g. all 20 could conflict with existing portfolio companies, or maybe only 15 do and the other 5 are not as impressive as they would like or any other reasons that disqualify them from being investable and reaching a deal with Khosla.

So all in all....if YC were producing 400 of the types of companies that fit Khosla's thesis...then I would agree with you.

But that is clearly not the case....so I don't think that is a useful data point.

His investment thesis is high-growth startups. Funny enough, that's YC too. What you are leaving out is his thesis assumes overwhelming control. That thesis is not in a founder's best interests. It's far better to raise less.

Nice dodge though turning hundreds of startups into tens based on no evidence. And in fact, when you look at his non-cleantech portfolio you can see that almost every YC startup would have a place there, especially the biggies and especially when they just need growth equity now.

The problem is Vinod saw the insane terms he could get in cleantech, while pushing founders aside, and so he anchors to those terms for everyone, including other VCs. The proof is in his lack of big wins, not even from his Kleiner days.

Given the hostility and your new account - I am going to assume that you have an axe to grind.

The hostility comes from the large gap between his public persona and what people actually know. That annoys me, yes. He's not a guy that accomplished people actively seek out.

You can judge him solely based on his portfolio. You dont need me for that. And that portfolio is lacking big wins and more importantly, founders who have become really successful.

Hrmmm.....ok....now you piqued my interest and I decided to check out some of their portfolio companies: http://www.khoslaventures.com/information-technology.html

Xobni, ZocDoc, RockMelt, Bitly, Square, Instacart, FuzeBox, and a few others.

Those seem like either big wins already or a high possibility of success.

Some of those have already exited and for barely getting their money back.

Square is the outlier. But Dorsey was proven by that point. His success certainly isn't Khosla.

Again, don't just look at KV. Khosla has been at this for a long-time starting at Kleiner. Where are all the companies he made? Those aren't that...

Feel free to email Jack at Square (Series A), or John Herring at Lookout (Series A), or Hosain at Jawbone (Series A, B) for references on KV.

You might also be familiar with Juniper, for example.

If that's the best you got, you've proved my point. Square I address below. Vinod gave the best valuation exactly because it was Jack. That's hardly founder friendly when you have no choice.

Jawbone is another fun data point. Yes, he bailed them out when they were going under. But all that did was give Vinod insane positioning. You care to share how much he owns? It's private equity, not VC.

Juniper is a perfect example of Bad Vinod. How long after founding did Pradeep last as CEO? and relative to Kriens, how we'll did he end up?

Lookout I don't know enough to comment on, but it looks like they were smart enough to get a second firm in to keep Vinod from his worst tendencies.

Square will be a $10 B+ outcome. Juniper already is. Lookout, Jawbone and ZocDoc (all Series A leads) are $1 Billion companies. Ring Central is on the precipice of its IPO, etc.

Nice dodge on the questions. I freely admit he does well BT his LPs. The problem is Bad Vinod has consistently screwed with founders. Good Vinod is likely a product of all of those terrible outcomes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com