This is a pretty old school take on VC evaluation (maybe because he hasn't been a VC for very long?).<p>Things that matter in today's world:<p>1. Team (how do they know you/what have you done)<p>2. Traction<p>3. Industry (to some degree, more as a blacklist)<p>That's pretty much it for anything Series A and earlier. If you don't have a very high ranking in one or both of the first two categories, you will not be raising money.
Another thing for entrepreneurs to keep in mind is that VC's deal with bigger chunks of money these days. Angels have take on a lot of the early stage risk, so if the process outlined in this article seems overly cautious or insular it's because there's just no need for a VC firm to take on high risk, that should have already been done by FFF and/or angels.
Has anyone gone back and attempted to correlate these scores with ultimate success of the start-ups? Obviously there is the possibility (even probability) of self-fulfilling prophecy, but it would still be interesting to see if the scores have the potential for real predictive value, or are mere rationalization.
Something I have noticed about the VC community is that it is very much dominated by an insular mindset that only permits introductions by companies that are already connected in some way. Companies without these connections don't have a chance, regardless of idea, model, revenues, or earnings.<p>This article does a good job of confirming this reality, from the initial introduction, to the diligence process. It's unfortunate that capital allocation has turned into a popularity contest.<p>Not to detract from this article( I don't know if minor self-promotion breaks HN etiquette )but I wrote on this topic recently, with particular emphasis on the AngelList model: <a href="http://haploid.com/post/10453313166/the-cool-kids-table" rel="nofollow">http://haploid.com/post/10453313166/the-cool-kids-table</a>