10 ms·

Just in case you got trapped, this is mostly a boilerplate which goal is not to help you but the author to get the appropriate image that would allow him to inv

by highCs 10y ago

Just in case you got trapped, this is mostly a boilerplate which goal is not to help you but the author to get the appropriate image that would allow him to invest in companies that are doing well. > How do competitors view you? Think about your 2-3 closest competitors. If you asked their CEOs to truthfully describe your company's strengths and vulnerabilities Well, your 6 months old startup has no "strengths and vulnerabilities". It should also not have direct competitors. Only big companies have this kind of things. You have code, users and growth. > Are you ready for a Series A? > Imagine that instead of being the founder of your company, you're an investor You already ask yourself these questions. > The debate from hell This one is decent and I'm nice. You already did this with your cofounder most of the time. > Was your MVP truly minimal? Who cares, you've survived. > Stomach-churning churn numbers You will stress automatically about churn. > The missing key Don't hire "key role". Only big companies do that. > Laughed out of the room Decent and I'm nice. > Unexpectedly large market By the way, only investors say market when talking about startups. While this has sense, it's kinda a concept for big companies again. Your startup has early users and say pool / niche of those. > Unexpectedly small market You rarely have an unexpectedly small market. Most of the time you have no market at all: you have built something people don't want. > How does the trajectory of the world over the next 5-10 years align (or misalign) with what you're doing? If you're growing, you're "aligned". And on and on. The intention is not really to help you here I believe.

dang 10y ago
This sort of dismissal based on platitudes ("Most of the time you have no market at all") is the sort of comment we don't want on Hacker News. Anything can be dismissed this way, and anyone can do it. It feels good, gets upvotes, and generates more of the same—and thus the discourse clogs up up with more and more of this. That's bad. And what does your apparent critique boil down to? "The intention is not really to help you here I believe"—in other words, (a) you read minds and (b) you assume your conclusion. For higher-quality discussion, we should apply the Principle of Charity: that is, assume the strongest plausible interpretation of an article and respond to that. Poking holes in a weak one may be fun but it is not substantive.
- shurcooL 10y ago
  > gets upvotes Why would it get upvotes if it's not helpful? Just trying to understand.
  - dang 10y ago
    Sadly, the upvote system reacts eagerly to many things that are bad for HN, e.g. indignation, snark, cynicism, sensationalism. One can speculate about why—my theory is that it plugs into reflexive neural circuits, rather than the slower, reflective ones that make for more thoughtful reactions—but the fact itself is painfully well-established.
    - pcmaffey 10y ago
      Really interesting counterposition of the terms "reflex" and "reflect". Both share the same etymological root and core meaning, but through application have mirrored distinctions that make them perfectly beautiful opposites, in the way you're using them.
      - Nomentatus 10y ago
        It's common for etymological roots to branch to opposites, or simply invert. And then maybe revert again. Almost too common to note, really. A byproduct of how core association is to our minds it would seem.
      - dang 10y ago
        I couldn't agree more. It's the best way I've found to explain the difference between what we do and don't want in HN comments: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&prefix=false&page=0&dateRange=all&type=comment&query=by:dang%20reflexive%20reflective https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&prefix=false&page=0&date...
    - DenisM 10y ago
      You theory lends itself to validation. One aspect is timing - upvotes produced later after reading will be more thoughtful. The other aspect is effort - if upvote required certain effort over a length of time, that upvote too would be more meaningful. On the other hand, a short burst of heroic effort points to a reflexive reaction. If we could somehow inject effort into the voting we would get some really meaningful weights for each vote. This could be calibrated with manual review of sample comments. We could also use this knowledge to calm people down - confronting a person with a lengthy task might give them time to rethink their position. So... how is that for an idea: having voted on something you get an option to return and double-down your vote, but no sooner than five minutes later. To try more things we could also show the user his recent upvotes, and mix in some comments he did not vote on, so that the user had to stop and think.
mjevans 10y ago
I think you're dismissing the competitors too early. It can be viewed more broadly as well. You are not just competing with similar businesses, but also the potential that customers literally 'do nothing'. In addition to that, there could also be legacy solutions or alternative ways of avoiding the issue that your company seeks to solve. Another important spin on this might be if you /should/ have had competition but they no longer exist. That's something that the search here can turn up and provide further input for the other thought points.
- greglindahl 10y ago
  A great way to look like an idiot is to get up in front of VCs and say there's no competition. The points that you bring up are all much better things to talk about than a flat "we have no competition" claim.

by highCs 10y ago

dang 10y ago

This sort of dismissal based on platitudes ("Most of the time you have no market at all") is the sort of comment we don't want on Hacker News. Anything can be dismissed this way, and anyone can do it. It feels good, gets upvotes, and generates more of the same—and thus the discourse clogs up up with more and more of this. That's bad. And what does your apparent critique boil down to? "The intention is not really to help you here I believe"—in other words, (a) you read minds and (b) you assume your conclusion. For higher-quality discussion, we should apply the Principle of Charity: that is, assume the strongest plausible interpretation of an article and respond to that. Poking holes in a weak one may be fun but it is not substantive.

shurcooL 10y ago
> gets upvotes Why would it get upvotes if it's not helpful? Just trying to understand.
- dang 10y ago
  Sadly, the upvote system reacts eagerly to many things that are bad for HN, e.g. indignation, snark, cynicism, sensationalism. One can speculate about why—my theory is that it plugs into reflexive neural circuits, rather than the slower, reflective ones that make for more thoughtful reactions—but the fact itself is painfully well-established.
  - pcmaffey 10y ago
    Really interesting counterposition of the terms "reflex" and "reflect". Both share the same etymological root and core meaning, but through application have mirrored distinctions that make them perfectly beautiful opposites, in the way you're using them.
    - Nomentatus 10y ago
      It's common for etymological roots to branch to opposites, or simply invert. And then maybe revert again. Almost too common to note, really. A byproduct of how core association is to our minds it would seem.
    - dang 10y ago
      I couldn't agree more. It's the best way I've found to explain the difference between what we do and don't want in HN comments: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&prefix=false&page=0&dateRange=all&type=comment&query=by:dang%20reflexive%20reflective https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&prefix=false&page=0&date...
  - DenisM 10y ago
    You theory lends itself to validation. One aspect is timing - upvotes produced later after reading will be more thoughtful. The other aspect is effort - if upvote required certain effort over a length of time, that upvote too would be more meaningful. On the other hand, a short burst of heroic effort points to a reflexive reaction. If we could somehow inject effort into the voting we would get some really meaningful weights for each vote. This could be calibrated with manual review of sample comments. We could also use this knowledge to calm people down - confronting a person with a lengthy task might give them time to rethink their position. So... how is that for an idea: having voted on something you get an option to return and double-down your vote, but no sooner than five minutes later. To try more things we could also show the user his recent upvotes, and mix in some comments he did not vote on, so that the user had to stop and think.

mjevans 10y ago

I think you're dismissing the competitors too early. It can be viewed more broadly as well. You are not just competing with similar businesses, but also the potential that customers literally 'do nothing'. In addition to that, there could also be legacy solutions or alternative ways of avoiding the issue that your company seeks to solve. Another important spin on this might be if you /should/ have had competition but they no longer exist. That's something that the search here can turn up and provide further input for the other thought points.

greglindahl 10y ago
A great way to look like an idiot is to get up in front of VCs and say there's no competition. The points that you bring up are all much better things to talk about than a flat "we have no competition" claim.