I'm not trying to be reductionist, I'm trying to nail down a precise shared meaning of the terms that our conversation depends on.

I have seen many founders who come from ivy league, with millions in family seed capital and extensive networks with introductions and connections squander them because they don't prioritize what is most important: they don't embrace uncertainty, discomfort, and struggle. They don't lean into bad news. They don't position themselves as servants to the customer.

I just don't buy that these advantages of reduction of risk are the most important variable in the equation. Ive seen them first hand hinder success as much as they enable it. And they definitely do not gatekeep it.

So if "coming from money" means seed capital and family connections then I stand by my point.

But if "coming from money" means living with parents or spouse who can cover basic living expenses with a frugal lifestyle while the founder focuses on building a business, then with that definition I would have to admin it has a big positive impact.

I guess the crux of my argument here is that founder actions matter an order of magnitude more than seed capital or family connections.