I read the grandparent post as "People in Silicon Valley often have the unrealistic expectation that everything a previously-successful entrepreneur does will succeed. When their first try inevitably doesn't work, this poisons the well for subsequent refinement and iteration. As a result, previously-successful entrepreneurs are creating startup labs to set the expectation that everything coming out of it is an experiment and insulate themselves from the PR backlash of trying some dumb ideas to get to a good one."
Which is not at-odds with your comment, although as a previously-successful entrepreneur, perhaps you can speak to whether or not there really is that backlash and premature judgment that he posits.
(Personally, as someone without much of a brand name, I relish the freedom that gives me to try stupid stuff. There's no way I'd be brave enough to try my current startup attempt - which is really quite humble - if everyone expected me to invent the next big thing.)
>My next thing is unlikely to be venture backed until it already has some success or momentum.
Can you elaborate a bit, Joshu? I took this to mean that you're electing not to seek venture backing early because of how it might skew incentives, but I can imagine some alternate readings as well.
I think that it is better discipline to raise when you have a product that needs it, rather than beforehand. There are many unnecessary ways to fail if you raise out of order.
They often get a first pass free but they still have to succeed in the normal way.
My next thing is unlikely to be venture backed until it already has some success or momentum.