I think (from personal experience) that they do this because 20 year olds have few responsibilities, which means they can work longer hours and take more risks.
It’s not “energy” because productivity of older more experienced founders is bound to be higher. Rather, younger inexperienced founders have to compensate for their lower productivity by increased hours.
I’d say overall the risk factor is more important, because married folks with kids have to worry about losing their job and finding another one a lot more. If your spouse isn’t working or is on reduced income, you have to prioritise job safety.
The only way out of that for older founders is to be rich, and that’s an advantage in general no matter the age. In the UK many founders are highly privileged and can take risks because there is little downside for them.
There’s definitely a gap in the market for a VC that invests in experienced founders with more tolerance for moving more slowly but with higher quality results. Deep tech is one area this would work.
Yeah, because it works as law of probability not law of physics. So out of ten thousand immature 20s a dozen may be very good making something that generate lot of wealth and immaturity in those cases might be helping not hurting them.
There are many ways to do it. How good of a way it is depends on what the market rate is for a 20 something possible unicorn/probable dud.
People in that age range sometimes have a nice set of traits like youthful self confidence and the energy levels needed to bust their ass and sell, along with the right amount insecurity that will drive them to need to prove themselves. When you combine this with the naivety and inexperience that lets you get a lopsided deal, with your experience that means that doesn’t happen to them after you, you end up in a situation where you can afford to have 10 or 20 duds between each winner. And it’s a lot of fun.
