Startup = Growth

by irainonyourparade

Paul Graham’s recent post, Startup = Growth, raises interesting questions about what makes a startup a startup.  The HN thread is interesting, as usual, but I feel like (also, as usual), they’re nitpicking about the wrong things.

The most prominent discussion thread debates whether or not PG’s definition of “startup” is too narrow.

The actual fun things in the article are:

1. PG gives us a NUMBER to shoot for. 7%/week growth. Love that he put out a number.  Also makes an interesting point about constant _rate_ growth rather than constant _user_ growth — Incidentally this probably makes MOST HN people firmly in the camp of “not a startup”

2. Claim that VC’s invest in startups because its too easy for small business owners to craft situations that don’t align investor and founder incentives, but its virtually impossible for  VC’s to invest in high _growth_ startups and lose. This is a stupid argument.

Who cares if PG’s definition of startup makes your company not a startup or if you think “startup” should mean something else.  It’s just a word and it doesn’t matter if you’re working on a startup or a small business, as long as it motivates *you*.