>Despite the article author's claim, most of the startups in the generation that I joined (2018+) have focused on getting a decent business model, rather than hyper growth above all else.
> They also had to do much more with significantly less. There was less VC money sloshing about compared to the west coast, so we had to be very careful in how we optimised.
With supporters like this the UK is in no need of enemies. It would be difficult to more pithily explain why the US is a better place to build a startup as a founder, or to explain why US startups have more money and so can pay their staff more.
> It would be difficult to more pithily explain why the US is a better place to build a startup as a founder, or to explain why US startups have more money and so can pay their staff more.
But it is really simple. In US they have a higher appetite for gambling.
This is devolving into a discussion about semantics, but in my vocabulary at least, just because you have an edge doesn't mean you're not gambling. It's about the level of risk, and investing huge amounts of capital in hopes of funding a unicorn tech startup fits the bill, to me.
US investors have a stronger focus on upside maximisation, Europe tends to focus on downside protection.
Having been on this merry-go-round in Europe, I can tell you that focusing on downside protection frequently results in poor decision making that activity prevents upside growth. In other words, worrying about the downside so much, makes it a self-fulfilling prophesy.
I’ve always thought it was stupid for VCs to worry about downside protection. Either you’re playing the VC game, and having companies go to zero is just part of the plan, or you’re not. Not being able to stomach the worst case scenario when you invest, just means you waste time that would be better spent trying to achieve the rocketship outcome everyone is looking for.
I wouldn't call it stupid unless you're participating in the VC ecosystem. If your aim is to build a sustainable business and get rich slowly by all means go for it. But if you want to get enormously rich the American way is clearly superior. Go big, fast, or go home. If the VC loses all their money who cares? Play at capitalism and lose, you lose your stakes. If you as a founder fail, well either try again or play a different game, one that doesn't involve questions like "Is the total addressable market here over a billion dollars a year?"
> They also had to do much more with significantly less. There was less VC money sloshing about compared to the west coast, so we had to be very careful in how we optimised.
With supporters like this the UK is in no need of enemies. It would be difficult to more pithily explain why the US is a better place to build a startup as a founder, or to explain why US startups have more money and so can pay their staff more.