Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

True, but must be viewed in context (a small IPO in the mid-1980s, for example, might raise $2M - it was a different world altogether back then).


Wrong context. The amount of money raised is a function of how much money is chasing that particular kind of deal. A better context is the current cost of doing business. The inflation adjusted costs of computers, licensing, and marketing are all down. Therefore startups need less funding, not more.

People forget that there is a cost to receiving too much funding, which is that you now need a success that justifies the money spent. Which means that if you spot a viable opportunity which is smaller than that target, you can't explore it. Even though in other circumstances it could have been perfectly appropriate for that company.

For an interesting book that covers the dynamics of how over-funding kills success, I highly recommend The Innovator's Solution. It is a follow-up to The Innovator's Dilemma, but the discussion of how money distorts organizational dynamics is only in the sequel.


But even if you adjust it for inflation, it's still under $50M for a VC fund...


Yes, it is undoubtedly a striking statistic - a really dramatic reflection of how the VC world has grown.


I think "engorged" might be a better word to use.




Consider applying for YC's Winter 2027 batch! Applications are open till November 2.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: