In fairness to the VCs, the 3 examples given in "The VC Codex" section seemed blatantly obvious to me. Here is the first one, for example:
> When they say: “Talk to us again when you have traction.”
> They really mean: “If you prove there is a market opportunity and that you can execute as a management team, then we might consider you. But because I don’t believe either of those things will happen, I will not be taking a risk on you”.
I mean, the general tone of the article is "VCs speak an ambiguous language because they're doing a dance with founders." One hand, sure, of course, that happens in literally every sales negotiation. But "Talk to us again when you have traction" seems pretty clear that the VC doesn't believe in either your market thesis or team, and they're basically saying "prove us wrong". I just don't see any guile here.
This is very true - the story also follows my maturing from extremely naïve to having my head screwed on a little better. To many people newly playing at startups, the traction comment is an invitation and not a rejection.
> When they say: “Talk to us again when you have traction.”
> They really mean: “If you prove there is a market opportunity and that you can execute as a management team, then we might consider you. But because I don’t believe either of those things will happen, I will not be taking a risk on you”.
I mean, the general tone of the article is "VCs speak an ambiguous language because they're doing a dance with founders." One hand, sure, of course, that happens in literally every sales negotiation. But "Talk to us again when you have traction" seems pretty clear that the VC doesn't believe in either your market thesis or team, and they're basically saying "prove us wrong". I just don't see any guile here.