>I think it is a little unfair to expect that PG should have acted 17 years ago in a way that he might do today. Today he has 17 years worth of extra experience to call upon.
But t's not just "today" -- he's been advocating that for over a decade -- so the change was much less than 17 years ago.
>Besides, there are more reasons for selling your company than simply maximising the financial return. Maybe his partners wanted to sell, maybe he was exhausted, maybe he lost his passion for the project, maybe he valued never having to work again by selling for a certain payoff now.
Sure. So why do PG (and others alike) piss on that model that worked for him?
I don't know why you think PG/YC "piss on that model."
The YC website says:
> We try to interfere as little as possible in the startups we fund. We don’t take board seats or many of the other powers investors sometimes require. We offer lots of advice, but we can’t force anyone to take it. We realize that independence is one of the reasons people want to start startups in the first place. And frankly, it’s also one of the reasons startups succeed. Investors who try to control the companies they fund often end up destroying them.
> One concrete consequence is that Y Combinator funding lets you sell early, if you want to. It can sometimes make sense to sell yourself when you’re small for a few million, rather than take more funding and roll the dice again.
But t's not just "today" -- he's been advocating that for over a decade -- so the change was much less than 17 years ago.
>Besides, there are more reasons for selling your company than simply maximising the financial return. Maybe his partners wanted to sell, maybe he was exhausted, maybe he lost his passion for the project, maybe he valued never having to work again by selling for a certain payoff now.
Sure. So why do PG (and others alike) piss on that model that worked for him?