True, but I would ask another question then: "Have the startups that have failed to be homeruns or have failed outright failed because they couldn't get the financial resources they need or have they failed for other reasons?"
And if funding is the primary limiting success factor, why don't they just move to where the funding is good?
Knowing what the ecosystem is like in a place like (1) Raleigh, NC; São Paulo, Brazil; and (3) Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; I would suspect that there are a lot more risk factors in Seattle than just lack of funding. Funding helps but it doesn't fix all the weaknesses in an ecosystem.
Good hackers alone does not make it a good ecosystem. How about good UI designers and good bizdev people? Are there plenty of them within the Seattle community? I'd expect that the quality of UI designers and bizdev people contribute more to distinguishing Seattle from Silicon Valley. I know that those were certainly the characteristics distinguishing the three startup ecosystems I am familiar with from Silicon Valley. The presence of UI designers and bizdev people have probably contributed more to the success of NYC as a startup hub than the presence of good hackers. AFAIK, NYC historically didn't have a strong hacker community or culture before it rose to prominence. What it did have is solid base of talented business and design professionals available.
All three markets of those markets had access to terrible funding, but if you were willing to accept the terrible terms, funding could be had.
Where I do agree is that an investor like Kevin helps is in providing smart funding. You'd get access to his network and his experience/advice, however the efficacy of his Silicon Valley network would be of limited use to a startup in Seattle compared to a startup in Silicon Valley.
