Tiger Global, fickle controls and difficulty accelerating

Welcome to Startups Weekly, a fresh, human take on this week's startup news and trends. To get this delivered to your inbox, sign up here.

When On Deck had to downsize twice in the space of a few months, its co-founders Erik Torenberg and David Booth issued a note promising more focus. Thus marked the company's return to its original cohort of customers - founders in need of networking and guidance.

Since that day, I've been digging into what happened at On Deck that led to a series of layoffs and refocusing. We know that community production has its challenges. But what are these challenges and how do they manifest beyond employees losing their jobs.

A month later, we have answers. On Deck is turning half of its business, focused on career services, into a new startup slated for launch in October. Torenberg, the founder, is stepping down as co-CEO after just one year, returning to a position as executive chairman. And the vision of an On Deck accelerator has completely faded, the company has just launched a new fund to invest in startups at market conditions. I learned how a Tiger Global term sheet picked was one of the first dominoes to fall, sources say, causing the company to prioritize growth over track.

Even if you don't care about the intricacies of this startup, On Deck's pivot and challenges provide a window into the complexities of building a business. Especially after last week's Launch House news, I think it's fascinating to see two examples of how startups trying to provide a network in exchange for equity and/or cash have struggled to growth at different times.

In the case of Launch House, the allegations highlighted a lack of leadership. In the case of On Deck, product changes highlighted a fragmented focus. The two, though wildly different stories, explained how selling something as vague and broad as "community" isn't so simple to pull off. I've talked a lot about how a community is more than a Slack group where people exchange ideas; it is living, breathing and requires more than just expression. That in itself is hard to force, but add the exponential growth needs of a company-backed startup and the trade-offs begin.

It's hard to get a founder to pay for a network without knowing exactly how that network will benefit the founder. How do you convince founders that your network is so much more different than the one they find for free? How do you solve membership or create a space that's not just transactional? And how do you ask people to look for long-term gains instead of short-term gains?

For the full story, read my feature: "On Deck tried to do it all. Now it's trying to do less, better. If you like this newsletter, do me a little favor? Forward it to a friend, share it on Twitter and tag me to thank you for reading it myself!

The ideal track is a myth

When it comes to advice, technology loves standardization. Startups are often told that there are certain metrics to hit, deadlines to meet, and timelines to measure themselves against. But for TechCrunch+ this week, I dug into the idea that having an ideal lead as a startup is a myth.

Here's why it matters: The numbers are nuanced. Of course, 20 years of track could just mean that the startup is so nearly profitable that it has unlimited track and is confident in its future. But it could also mean that the founder is not taking as many risks as he should. Some might say that 20 years of track is too much track. I mean, spend a little, right?