Are there historical (in the last 20 years) examples of founders who wrangled 100x investment from investors, who would now not be able to do this because this supposed information asymetry no longer exists.
His main example was Facebook. But really, you should read the essay in its entirety and get his arguments directly.
Looking further back, Bill Gates managed to steal the future right out from underneath IBM through information asymmetry. Venkat is drawing large arcs here, and he would consider IBM an "investor" for the purposes of the discussion.
Facebook's leverage was growth, not information asymmetry. Zuckerberg's personal strengths are that he is savvy, and he had knowledge gleaned from Sean Parker et al. If anything YCombinator and others help make acquiring that knowledge easier. YCombinator's strengths are as much in its alumni sharing information within the network, much the same as Sean Parker shared information with Zuck, as in anything else that happens physically at YCombinator.
I have no idea how YCombinator, the lean startup movement or any of the other miscellaneous "villains" Venkatesh identifies would prevent a new Zuckerberg from raising money at the such favorable terms again.
Re: IBM/Microsoft - As Jobs did with Xerox, as Jack Dorsey may do with Visa one day. Savvy players beating non savvy players is a trend that has happened throughout history. I do not see how any recent developments preclude that. Venkat is framing this into an elegy for the savvy entrepreneur when there is no necessity for that.
I did read the essay - all 3 parts of it. There are some interesting points about return to city states and an understanding of politics being a huge strength for entrepreneurs towards the end, and several valid points about acqui-hires becoming more and more mainstream towards the beginning. I wish he had stuck to making those points instead of trying to weave a grand theory of entrepreneurs as the new labor which does not hold.
I do agree that he's unnecessarily harbingering and that the future is brighter than he paints it. But I also think that if really smart, savvy founders aren't already starting to keep away from incubators like YC and the acqui-hire path, they will pretty soon as they all start to get branded as alternative education paths.
I know I wouldn't apply to any incubator if I had a startup, I've felt this way for awhile now. They just don't seem to offer much value, rather being just a grand distraction, YC being the only one worth anything and even that's arguable. Capital isn't as valuable as it used to be, why give up control when you can generate it yourself? But it's really the only value an incubator adds.
> If anything YCombinator and others help make acquiring that knowledge easier.
Err, I seriously doubt that. He talks about these sorts of power dynamics in his Gervais series, and personal experience leads me to believe that it can't be taught. It can only be learned by making real power plays with real stakes, and losing. If you're really sharp, as Zuckerburg was, you can develop savvy early. Otherwise it takes lots of hard lumps. YC in my estimation wouldn't be any better or worse for learning power than just going it alone.
I'll assume you are not intentionally mis-stating my argument. I separated Zuckerberg's strengths into two parts: (1) savvy and (2) knowledge of how investors operate. (1) is intrinsic or learned through experience and nothing external in the current milieu precludes it's use. (2) can be taught, as it was to Zuckerberg.
