Recently, Paul Graham wrote that there is a gap in the venture capital landscape, which he thinks explains why there aren't more "Googles" out there. I have my own issues with his essay, but I take his word from the "front lines" that he is seeing innovative startups (potential Googles) not being able to get the funding they need.
So naturally, why not fill this gap himself (or at least part of it)? It seems to make perfect sense. If he doesn't have the money already, I can't imagine it would be that hard for him to raise a fund. He is presumably already seeing potential Googles via Y Combinator, so he wouldn't have to do much work to get quality deal flow. And of course, he would make a ton of money if his theory about why there aren't more Googles is correct. After all his essay says:
Update: additional comments can be found here.
So naturally, why not fill this gap himself (or at least part of it)? It seems to make perfect sense. If he doesn't have the money already, I can't imagine it would be that hard for him to raise a fund. He is presumably already seeing potential Googles via Y Combinator, so he wouldn't have to do much work to get quality deal flow. And of course, he would make a ton of money if his theory about why there aren't more Googles is correct. After all his essay says:
...there is a big opportunity here, and one way or the other it's going to get filled. Either VCs will evolve down into this gap or, more likely, new investors will appear to fill it. That will be a good thing when it happens...[and] will get us a lot more Googles.Am I missing something? Perhaps this is already in the works...
Update: additional comments can be found here.
