Surprisingly raising venture capital does not have a lot of correlation with startup success.pic.twitter.com/2QuNgfj9qH
Show this thread
Those numbers don't prove anything by themselves. Everyone knows startups have a high failure rate. To measure the effect of funding, you'd have to compare the failure rate of startups that raised money to comparable startups that didn't.
-
-
Wait are you correcting someone else’s interpretation of statistics
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
"Our sample consists of 35,568 startups founded between 1990 and 2010. Of those, 6,856 eventually achieved an IPO or acquisition." Thats a bit less than 20%... Not sure how at all that can *possibly* line up with attrition numbers
-
Nevermind. Figured out what they meant; the 'failed to exit' should be inverted and called 'exited' So 3% of seeds exit
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Paul is right, the premise of the statement does not fit the emperical..... And that it was tabulated...lol!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Agreed Paul, another way to look at this is building a successful startup is really really hard. Regardless of funding
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I’d be curious of the ones that do fail, how long did it take to fail? Was there extra wasted time in startups that raised when the idea would fail regardless?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Yes I agree
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Said the VC
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.