My personal opinion is that he still believes in startups, but that the timing was right for him to get out for awhile. Regardless of what he says, what he does is far more telling. My guess is that the fever pitch of huge valuations and fund-raising rounds is getting to a point where it might just make sense to step aside and find something else to do for a few years to see what happens with the market.
The idea would be that the Paul Graham "brand" has a lot at stake among startups. If the bottom falls out of the market in the next 2 years (or whatever you want to define as "short term"), then he'll come out the other side looking that much better, that he got out in plenty of time. If everything continues on its current trend, he still sleeps perfectly well at night and his reputation hasn't taken a hit at all.
Don't misconstrue this as criticism of anyone. I have nothing whatsoever against either Paul Graham or Sam Altman. This is just my personal opinion on the matter.
My theory about PG is that he got sick of being the political animal that YC currently requires. Compare and contrast PG and Altman.
Graham wrote a "Request for Startups" that expressed an honest and tradeable opinion: "these 6 categories are likely to make me money, I want to fund them." Now compare to Sam Altman's RFS: "here are all the possible categories, don't be mad at me for forgetting yours, plus a few feel-good platitudes that will make the media like me."
YC probably needs a schmoozer/politician more than an intellectual right now. But that doesn't mean PG wants to be that person.
I can't remember if it was pg's writings that I got this from, but this week I remembered reading a few years ago that recessions are a good time to start a startup, because the established players are less likely to spend on new risky things and because skills are easier to find. Both those things are feeling quite different right now, with the increasing trouble of attracting skills and the cash piles companies are increasingly confident on spending again.
Maybe this is just the efficient market hypothesis at work - everyone has (thinks they have?) figured out the signals that lead to success?
In any case, I wonder how companies with such massive escalation in their valuation will hire and raise subsequent funding. It really makes me wonder, you look at companies like Uber with $xx billion valuations, what's left for someone who joins now as an employee or investor?
> It really makes me wonder, you look at companies like Uber with $xx billion valuations, what's left for someone who joins now as an employee or investor?
That's always been the case. The opportunity for outsized gains in any risky venture is at the beginning where the risk is the greatest. Where there's no risk, there's no opportunity.
The idea would be that the Paul Graham "brand" has a lot at stake among startups. If the bottom falls out of the market in the next 2 years (or whatever you want to define as "short term"), then he'll come out the other side looking that much better, that he got out in plenty of time. If everything continues on its current trend, he still sleeps perfectly well at night and his reputation hasn't taken a hit at all.
Don't misconstrue this as criticism of anyone. I have nothing whatsoever against either Paul Graham or Sam Altman. This is just my personal opinion on the matter.