> At the seed stage, there are companies who have been around for 5 months and others for 5 years.
And what is the reasoning behind considering the former as better than the latter? The latter most likely has a more mature product with less technical debt and has shown that it can shoulder its operational costs for 5 years. The former has "speed" ... great.
> Demonstrate that you can pull the trigger on things quickly — whether it be getting customers, hiring / firing employees, or product development.
Quick turnaround is first and foremost an indicator of something wrong, not something right.
Speed is the denominator that any progress or success is measured against. More progress in less time is a better thing. Another way of thinking about it is: what company would you rather invest in, one that hit $1M in annual revenues in 1 year, or one that hit $1M in annual revenues in 5 years?
The former implies there's a lot more opportunity still to come, the latter suggests a small market, a mediocre product, or a team that isn't good at selling.
And what is the reasoning behind considering the former as better than the latter? The latter most likely has a more mature product with less technical debt and has shown that it can shoulder its operational costs for 5 years. The former has "speed" ... great.
> Demonstrate that you can pull the trigger on things quickly — whether it be getting customers, hiring / firing employees, or product development.
Quick turnaround is first and foremost an indicator of something wrong, not something right.