Comments on: Can philanthropists be ruthless? http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/06/25/can-philanthropists-be-ruthless/ A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: KenG_CA http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/06/25/can-philanthropists-be-ruthless/comment-page-1/#comment-47477 Wed, 26 Jun 2013 15:46:21 +0000 https://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=22155#comment-47477 “Tech entrepreneurs are used to a culture of failure — 10 bad ideas that sink before one gets to its multibillion-dollar initial public offering.”

That’s not true. It’s VCs that fund 10 bad ideas to get one good one; also, not all good ideas must exit with a multi-billion dollar IPO. That’s the Hollywood take on the start-up world.

The tech entrepreneurs who try to save the world are not the ones who have 10 bad ideas; usually they are the ones who have had at least one great idea, and maybe many more. The ones that have had 10 bad ideas don’t get funded, and don’t have the money to save the world.

]]>
By: CharlesKenny http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/06/25/can-philanthropists-be-ruthless/comment-page-1/#comment-47475 Wed, 26 Jun 2013 12:21:10 +0000 https://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=22155#comment-47475 Felix- Point taken, we may be too keen on our home-town startup before all the evidence is in! As you say –the proof will be if DIV manages to cut funding from previous applicants in later rounds based on failure.

Having said that, at least the model is set up right. The investments are *designed* with evaluation in mind, and the model is that subsequent stages of funding only go ahead on the basis that previous rounds have demonstrated development impact through that evaluation. Not that randomized controls are the answer to (even nearly) everything, but invest, do an RCT, scale up, do another evaluation, invest more is just so much better an approach than ‘see if you can persuade some rich people in the US that it’s a neat idea.’

]]>