You know those startups that sound like they're tackling a big problem (like "healthcare" or "climate change") but the thing they plan to build can only fix a tiny part of the problem, even if they executed it perfectly?
-
-
Solving a "modest" problem competently gives you, like, a $200M exit. Investors can't get the returns they need unless they bet on companies that have a chance to do better than that.
Show this thread -
I'm used to downplaying my ambitions to sound more "professional" and "serious", because I don't have nearly enough of a track record yet to prove I can achieve them. But I'm starting to get better responses just by telling the truth explicitly.
Show this thread -
From the VC's perspective, hearing "I want to replace a $300B market" is a good sign, not because it proves you can (it doesn't), but because it distinguishes you from people who aren't even thinking of trying (which is actually a lot of founders!!!)
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
solving a "small problem" is so diametrically opposed to the VC investment thesis which requires significant out performance not only is it boring, it's also a waste of time small problems = small market = small return
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.