I think the tendency on HN is going to be to pile on this guy for not believing in his dreams enough, but I think he's got a point. Tenacity may be a necessary condition, but it isn't a sufficient condition. Resources matter.
But anecdotally, I don't see a strong correlation between celebpreneur status and repeated success. I suspect that any correlation might actually be negative.
There are a few people who defy the odds, though. The one common trait I've observed is that they are laser-focused on the product, so they are less prone to self-delusion.
UPDATE: Brandon Smietana wrote a good answer for this on Quora, reviewing some empirical studies which suggest my intuition is wrong. Entrepreneurs with previous success are probably as likely, or more likely, to succeed in the future. But it's not a given that funding inevitably flows to the more experienced entrepreneur.
Sure, pedigree undeniably opens doors, but I think the reason we pile on this attitude is the same reason I believe in practice over intelligence or free will over determinism: it's just not a useful to dwell on as an entrepreneur.
Building a successful business from scratch is incredibly difficult no matter who you are. Getting a lot of publicity in tech circles in no way translates to success. It can be useful sure, but it won't help without a sticky product to begin with, and if you have a sticky product then there are plenty of other avenues for promotion. There are plenty of ways to bootstrap, and a lot of them will yield more paying customers than getting a flurry of fickle hipster attention from tech blogs.
It's easy to come onto the scene and look around and think it's all been done and how can you ever break into this world with so many brilliant serial entrepreneurs around, but realize every serial entrepreneur once had their first venture. In reality there's never been a better time to do a startup. The field is not "full"—a lot of successful founders lose their hunger and go on to angle investing, which actually increases your odds of getting funding, and in any case the horizon for new ideas is constantly receding.
I think there is something useful to extract from this. One would be the importance of your sociability. Who you know is important in everything from finding good hackers for partners, to knowing someone who knows someone for whatever. You don't have to be a tech celeb to achieve this, but it is something that cannot be accomplished overnight.
That extra free hour might be better spent being socially active vs me writing responses to responses on HN.
I think fame can be a bit of a burden. If you have a kind of guru status you might be averse to taking risks that others think are foolish. Whereas when you were an unknown that wouldn't have mattered.
But, that's a minor factor. This is what I was thinking: celebrity is associated with at least one past success, and it becomes like a characteristic of the person, for at least some time. Business success has many more factors, some of them effectively random, and not associated with the person.
So we should expect reversion to mean for the entrepreneur's post-celebrity ventures. While they may succeed more often than others over time, their next big venture would be highly likely to be a flop.
But: Smietana's post linked to research which suggests that I'm actually totally wrong here, and entrepreneurial success is more of a function of skill. Maybe that suggests that the successful entrepreneurs are the ones who learned the best during their first venture, which makes replicating success easier.
I believe he means a negative correlation (not a negative personality); as in, the more famed celebristatus the less "success" which, was not supported in his original post.
Edit: OP edited with the Quora post, which links more successes (or celebristatus) leads to more success.
But anecdotally, I don't see a strong correlation between celebpreneur status and repeated success. I suspect that any correlation might actually be negative.
There are a few people who defy the odds, though. The one common trait I've observed is that they are laser-focused on the product, so they are less prone to self-delusion.
UPDATE: Brandon Smietana wrote a good answer for this on Quora, reviewing some empirical studies which suggest my intuition is wrong. Entrepreneurs with previous success are probably as likely, or more likely, to succeed in the future. But it's not a given that funding inevitably flows to the more experienced entrepreneur.
http://www.quora.com/How-much-does-startup-pedigree-matter