I suspect it's the opposite, and that venture capitalists are a lot more worried about having to appease Paul Graham than the other way around, because of YC's position in the deal flow. I have anecdotal evidence that strongly corroborates that assertion, but you'll just have to take my word for it.
Given the notion that Paul Graham is not in fact worried about people on HN offending the delicate sensitivities of VC firm partners, your entire argument falls apart, and nothing you've experienced on HN has anything to do with you being a thorn in the side of any "-stan", potential or otherwise.
Incidentally, your continued and ritualized use of the term "VC-istan" harms your arguments, because it's a term that can mean whatever you want it to in any given situation. Is YC part of "VC-istan"? Who knows! It depends on where you want to be in an debate. Anyone who's been on more than a couple message board debates sees that problem coming and discounts your credibility to price that risk in.
It's one thing to use a term like "VC-istan" (I prefer "startuplandia"; Maciej Ceglowski seems to like "flounders") as a way of poking fun at startup culture. But that's not how you use the term. You write as if "VC-istan" is something real.
You didn't answer my question, by the way. I'm easy to find privately if you're not comfortable answering here. Or talk to anyone else. Just make sure you're talking to someone if you need to be.
Venture capitalists do not fear Paul Graham. He may be the godfather of Y Combinator, but people at Sequoia are involved in far bigger deals all the time.
None of these people "fear" any of these people, but if you correct for the words I actually used, I stand by my previous assertion and believe you're simply wrong. It's pretty straightforward to work out what YC has that VCs need, and how little VCs have that YC needs.
Once again, we're having this pointless conversation because you argued upthread that Paul Graham is so terrified of venture capitalists that he represses you on Hacker News to appease them, so angry are they at your mean comments about them.
It's pretty straightforward to work out what YC has that VCs need, and how little VCs have that YC needs.Once again, we're having this pointless conversation because you argued upthread that Paul Graham is so terrified of venture capitalists that he represses you on Hacker News to appease them, so angry are they at your mean comments about them.
If Y Combinator can't place, it stops being the destination incubator with its pick of emerging startups. It loses the top talent and the brand. Yes, VCs would rather get along with Paul Graham than not, but the real power is with the VCs. If they stop funding YC startups and YC can't place, then it becomes just another crappy incubator.
Paul Graham needs the VCs a lot more than they need him. YC's only advantage is that it seems to get a disproportionate share of highly talented founders. However, VCs don't need more talent-- there's an ocean of untapped talent out there-- but everyone in VC-istan needs funding to play. Money is the scarce resource, not talent.
I respect what Paul Graham has achieved, or at least that he has achieved it. I prefer revolution over incremental improvement, but PG has succeeded on his own terms. However, don't kid yourself. If the VCs stop placing YC startups, he and Y Combinator are nothing in the Valley. If the leading VCs tell him to put the kibosh on inconvenient truths, he has no other choice.
Considering the amount you talk about it, you really don't seem to understand this business. Do you think a VC is going to refuse to fund a YC company that they otherwise think is promising enough to fund, in order to teach me a lesson? They'd just be handing the deal to another firm. Unless you believe the coalition of VCs who want to suppress whatever crackpot "truth" you're talking about = the entire VC business, which would be an amazing organizational feat considering how many there are and how much some of them dislike others.
I think that the leading figures of VC-istan would deny funding to settle a political score, yes. It happens in big companies, and VC-istan is the first postmodern corporation, and just a new form of the same old thing.
People stop good ideas and back bad ones for political reasons all the time, and VCs are known for the same behavior (probably no more than big-company high officers, but neither no less). People care more about their individual careers and status than about the bottom line of some organization that might kick out a bonus, and that's a big part of why companies don't "act rationally". The people in them are out for themselves because, honestly, who wouldn't be? Selflessness leads nowhere.
You argue that VC collusion would be "an amazing organizational feat considering how many there are and how much some of them dislike others", but there is, in fact, a lot of co-funding, social-proof-oriented decision making, and collusion. Think of how 90+ percent of funding decisions are based on who else is funding the round, or who made the introduction. It's a "who you know", good-ole-boy network, business in the extreme and you're delusional if you think it's still the meritocracy it might have been 15 years ago. The fact that some VCs dislike each other doesn't prevent that collusive culture from existing, just as high-ranking executives in a more traditional company can dislike each other intensely but that doesn't stop the firm from operating.
[ETA 1.5h: also, if you want to prove me wrong and show that you don't answer to VC-istan, you have the option of removing the slowban and rankban.]
This is a conspiracy theory. As it confronts evidence that might contradict it, it mutates, steadily choosing paths that are less falsifiable. It essentially posits the existence of a "Venture Capital Illuminati" in which organizations that compete with each other and are united solely by a shared general business model have teamed up, among other reasons to oppress (no exaggeration) Michael O. Church, because his ideas are too dangerous to them.
I agree though that Michael is taking it a little too far. What's true now, has been, and always will be is that money is king -- all other things, all connections, all politics come second. If YC has a startup in its class that they legitimately think is the next Google, they will fight like animals to get in on it.
Given the notion that Paul Graham is not in fact worried about people on HN offending the delicate sensitivities of VC firm partners, your entire argument falls apart, and nothing you've experienced on HN has anything to do with you being a thorn in the side of any "-stan", potential or otherwise.
Incidentally, your continued and ritualized use of the term "VC-istan" harms your arguments, because it's a term that can mean whatever you want it to in any given situation. Is YC part of "VC-istan"? Who knows! It depends on where you want to be in an debate. Anyone who's been on more than a couple message board debates sees that problem coming and discounts your credibility to price that risk in.
It's one thing to use a term like "VC-istan" (I prefer "startuplandia"; Maciej Ceglowski seems to like "flounders") as a way of poking fun at startup culture. But that's not how you use the term. You write as if "VC-istan" is something real.
You didn't answer my question, by the way. I'm easy to find privately if you're not comfortable answering here. Or talk to anyone else. Just make sure you're talking to someone if you need to be.