You've definitely got a good point there, but I think you're being a bit unfair to the author also. SpaceXes and Teslas are by far the exception to the kind of companies SV is funding. They're probably only funded because it's Elon Musk behind them.
VC/Angel in SV has made enormous strides in working out how to reduce risk in entrepreneurship and is, to be honest, fairly incredible at selecting the companies that are going to work. YC is even better than most. The problem the author is talking about is that we (well, you) have become so good at selecting the winning companies that we're possibly throwing away the real risky bets that could be even bigger wins simply because an MVP and traction can't be found before lots of cash is on the table.
Of course, the exception to the author's point is, I believe, Planetary Resources.
"They're probably only funded because it's Elon Musk behind them."
And because of significant advantages and opportunities. Tesla, for example, benefits from the department of energy loan program as well as other tax incentives (like ZEV credits, which comprised most of their revenue thusfar)
Well, those opportunities were there for anyone to take, but Musk succeeded in both electric cars (vs Fisker, Nissan, Toyota, etc) AND in space (vs Virgin, Armadillo, Scaled Composites, etc). So at this point, I'd say that funding Musk is a safer bet than funding an opportunity.
VC/Angel in SV has made enormous strides in working out how to reduce risk in entrepreneurship and is, to be honest, fairly incredible at selecting the companies that are going to work. YC is even better than most. The problem the author is talking about is that we (well, you) have become so good at selecting the winning companies that we're possibly throwing away the real risky bets that could be even bigger wins simply because an MVP and traction can't be found before lots of cash is on the table.
Of course, the exception to the author's point is, I believe, Planetary Resources.