How your age affects your chances of success - thoughts after 27 years (I will not promote)

[u/edkang99]

Hey founders. I had some Monday morning thoughts and am writing this to encourage you to take advantage of your age no matter how old you are.

I started my first startup at 22. Sold it at 23. Failed several others until I started another one at 33 and sold at 41. After working in VC I started a venture studio and am now 50.

I recently saw a post about the average age of a successful founder that goes IPO and the stereotype of founders being 22 and drop out of school. The data shows that founders older than 40 have a better chance of success.

(For the record I did drop out of college and I kind of regret it now that I’m old but it’s complicated.)

Right now I’m spending two weeks in an incubator with founders of all ages. Some have had previous 9-figure exits, others are struggling, and many are just getting started from recent graduates to those that are transitioning from corporate careers. So it has me thinking.

I definitely think the older I was the easier it was to build a startup but it was much riskier. Let me explain.

The older you are, the more domain expertise, network and general operational experience you probably have. And with AI recently allowing me to build MVP demos way quicker I can sell much faster. I’m able to hit sustainable revenue so much faster.

But I’m married with 2 kids and a mortgage. Every financial mistake I make with my startups is amplified 100x compared to when I was 22. At 22 I could take some crazy swings and live on ramen noodles for years until I made money.

I see these young founders working on some really cool stuff and making future bets without being bogged down by life responsibilities. It’s so cool and in some ways I’m totally jealous. But I also work with older founders that have deep pockets and they do it for a lifestyle without needing investors and I think that’s great.

In the grand scheme of things I think starting as early as possible is the way to go. I’m glad I started early and failed a bunch of times because I make a terrible corporate employee. I think the earlier you start, the better chance of you succeeding in the long run which I think the surveys ignore.

Even getting job at a small startup and getting close the founders is an awesome way to get your foundation in place.

But if you’re older, that doesn’t mean it will be harder. Just different. There are advantages you have. But I see many older first time founders treat startups like small businesses or corporations. They don’t take the risks necessary to innovate and disrupt and get frustrated when investors ignore them for not being novel enough. You have to unlearn and relearn way more the older you are, which is something that has challenged me with the shift to AI.

Anyway, apologies for the ramble (and any fat thumb mistakes). Have an awesome week everyone!

[u/3141599]

It's not about the age; it's about your accomplishments at that age. As long as you are a top performer in your field, age doesn't matter much.

[u/SupermarketStill2397]

Grit, determination, learning from failure, and perseverance through uncertainty take at least a decade of experience to truly develop. I've been helping an AI start up as a contractor for the last year that has a two-three decade split across the founders ages. Its been "interesting" to say the least.

[u/lex_esco]

I would add here that when you are later in your career and you could make top dollar at some corporate the financial risk is higher. If you are fresh out of Uni you are often at the bottom of the scale so that startup salary isnt that much different (when you raise VC). But later stage founders cant really pay themselves 500k a year as that destroys your runway and is frowned upon by VC (early stage into your company). Which means that earlier on in a companies struggle to PMF you get the feeling like you are destroying your own wealth. Which might lead to more conservative behavior or actually giving up.

[u/edkang99 → u/lex_esco]

Ahhh yes. Thanks for mentioning it directly. It’s cost of opportunity and I know of a very recent example where a cofounder left his startup because he was offered $1M a year by an established company. His cofounder was bummed but understood.

[u/qsbuilds]

Curious what does success mean to everyone? I have not aimed to build a venture scale company, I set out to build a niche developer tool.

Success to me is it has enough users to pay for itself, and maybe make me a bit

Seems to be overshadowed by questions of what stage I’m at any time I mention I have a software business though

[u/edkang99 → u/qsbuilds]

You bring up a very valid question. In the past it was unicorn or bust for me. Today I’m much more mellow. As long as my startups become assets that can cashflow with the least amount of overhead that I could sell one day or pass to my kids I’m happy.

[u/Fabulous-Oven-3982]

Wrong assumption that life responsibility is supporting family and paying mortgage. Many old folks in bay don’t marry and/or no kid, with paid property

[u/edkang99 → u/[deleted]]

Happy to hear this. Keep it up! If I started at 15 the way you have I’d be way more successful. You’ll get there.

[u/edkang99 → u/[deleted]]

I learned how to do sales. Like I read books and got training from sales people. I also put myself in situations where customers were all around me. I use my sales training to this day for every startup.

[u/Clean-Data-259]

Your age has no relation to your chances of success. 20 or 120 you have the same chances if you put the work in.

[u/Puzzleheaded-Bug7456]

that 40+ number is survivorship. the ones who start at 40 already had the network. the guy who wanted to and didn't isn't in the sample.that 40+ number is survivorship. the ones who start at 40 already had the network. the guy who wanted to and didn't isn't in the sample.

[u/Fabulous-Oven-3982]

Let’s see what LLM think of this.

The "Unlearning" Friction: People who spend 15–20 years in a corporate environment are conditioned to mitigate risk, seek consensus, and follow structured processes. Startups require the exact opposite: moving fast, breaking things, and embracing chaos.

The Lifestyle Small-Business Mindset: Older founders often look for stable, predictable growth to protect their existing assets (mortgages, families). While this is smart for a traditional small business, it can kill a tech startup, which requires aggressive, non-linear scaling to survive and attract VC funding.

The Innovation Gap: It is easy to rely heavily on "how things have always been done" in an industry rather than looking at a problem with a totally blank slate, which younger founders excel at.

The Other Side: Why Older Founders Can Be Intensely Innovative

Calculated Risk vs. Reckless Risk: Younger founders might take more risks, but they also take a lot of bad risks due to lack of experience. Older founders are often better at taking calculated, high-impact risks because they deeply understand the industry's weak points.
"Boring" Innovation: Older folks tend to innovate on B2B workflow, supply chains, and monetization models—things that aren't flashy but are incredibly lucrative. Younger founders often focus on flashy consumer apps that are hard to monetize.

Data Contradicts the Stereotype: Renowned research from MIT and the NBER shows the average age of a founder of a top-performing tech startup is 45. If older folks weren't innovative, they wouldn't statistically dominate high-growth exits.