Bulletball

Wow. That is, dare I say it, ballsy. I think this is destined to be an interesting anecdote for Mr. Richard later in life. I get the feeling the lawyer, Rory Vohwinkel, is a family friend who does this all the time (Las Vegas is ground zero for, er, marginal corporations). Interesting note - it's $12,500 for 20% of his company, a typical seed-level investment. I often wonder about the wild and woolly world of penny stocks, but never to invest in. Does anyone know what the downside is for this company if they have no better funding options (and I wouldn't be shocked to find out they didn't)? Also, this guy's business approach is still far superior to that of the Bulletball guy. [this video]

>Even the most successful people failed a ton before they got big success. That's just survivorship bias[1]. Yes, the big successes failed a lot. But so did the big failures. When all you see are Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc., its easy to ignore all the little companies that failed and bankrupted all who were involved. For an example of the downside, see this: [this video] . Can you really, honestly say that Mark Griffin hasn't ruined his life? You ask about the founders of Color. The cannot be failures. Why not? They've already succeeded at least once. The entire reason Color is as hyped as it is right now is because of its "supergroup" status. The only thing distinguishing it is the fact that it was designed and built by programmers and designers that were extremely successfull at other companies. Without that cachet, its simply just another photo-sharing app. >If you always give up right when you feel things are bleakest -> You'll never go bankrupt or to be more precise never experience total failure. >At the same time - you'll never experience the best possible success you could have. Because if everything is easy and guaranteed that probably means you never did the maximum you could and never pushed yourself. That's true. But, before you go all-in, you should ask yourself, "Can I afford this?" Yes, its easy to say yes if you're a 25 year-old with no family, no mortgage, and no debt. But, if you're a 40 year-old with obligations? Do you really want to put your dependents thr

The title says to "continue working on your bad idea" but the article is really about pivoting. Pivoting is not the same as continuing to work on your bad idea. Pivoting is about YOU continuing to work, and leaving the bad parts of your bad idea by the side of the road and moving forward. Obviously, if an idea is bad, continuing to work on it is stupid. For example: [this video] But if you can take some good parts of your bad idea and move forward, that is smart. And that's not news; that's a concept from lean startup, and Eric Ries didn't invent it. It goes back to the Romans. IMHO, the title is misleading and the article is trite.

Right, I read that part. It's still unclear what the purpose of the post was. Are you trying to dissuade people from betting the farm on a venture? If someone sent you an email and said "As a result of your blog post I went out and _________" what would you want that (blank) to be? Separately, I don't agree with the premise that big risks in and of themselves are sexy. Big Risks around a overwhelmingly huge opportunity, in an exciting sector with clear momentum are what is sexy. Nobody thinks the person with no capabilities, risking everything for a terrible idea is sexy. Like this guy: The creator of "Bulletball:" [this video] Does anyone think this guy or his idea is sexy? No. Those people are cranks and loons and are generally derided and dismissed.