161–170 of 207 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interestingly, pedestrian injuries went up significantly after seatbelt laws, for the reason you note/deride.
> Interestingly, pedestrian injuries went up significantly after seatbelt laws, for the reason you note/deride. Source?
A few months' back, someone on Twitter criticized a similar platform, calling it an outright scam. I said that was totally unfair, and that it's one thing to call it a bad deal (which really depends on the percentage given up and the quality of the companies in the pool), it's another thing to call it a scam. That prompted the "pro-VC crowd" to start calling me stupid and naive - "startups need cash, not equity", "if…
> Unsurprising, given the pool makes founders less reliant on them How? The startup still need VCs for funding. If I were a VC, one gripe would be that it might hurt a founder's motivation. At 1% of a founder's equity, it's not so much that they're not working to make the next big thing, but in the back of their mind, they know they might get $1M for it. My other concern is that this almost freerides on the VC model.…
For precisely the reason you set out in your second paragraph.
Assuming your startup is in the VC bucket to begin with, you have two choices when you start floundering. Either ask for more money, or shut it down.
The latter practically guarantees you leave with nothing, so naturally, you prefer the former. This means VCs are almost always in a position of leverage to extract a larger share/more onerous terms/etc.
With a stake in a founder pool, "walking away" becomes a much more attractive option. You already have some baseline value that makes you far less reliant on whatever opportunistic VC you're in bed with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Interestingly, pedestrian injuries went up significantly after seatbelt laws, for the reason you note/deride. Source?
Not sure what book I read it in, but here’s a cite to a study that concluded this was the case: https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/trapol/v44y2015icp58-64.html
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A 0.1% equity stake in a startup that ends up hitting is life changing. For the vast majority of startups, "hitting" is $100-200M acquihire. 0.1% of that is only 200K. If you can get in on something like Beyond Meat, sure, but that's the kind of a company which won't be a part of something like this. Speaking from the other end of this spectrum, BTW, my risk tolerance is higher now than it's ever been. I don't have…
Much of our research has been with founders at YC & 500 (cohorts who represent the Beyond Meats of the world). The majority we spoke to, including the breakout unicorns, stated they would have have participated in equity pooling with their batchmates during the batch. We also learned the darlings of their batch were often not the breakout successes, and later upstaged by others in the batch.
The first cohort (5 cos in 2017) I offered them to all pool some of their equity. But first I polled how much each would be willing to give. The results were 0%, 0%, 2%, 5%, and 20%.
So, I abandoned it. Ironically the one that offered 20% is doing the best so far.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> keep up financially with my spouse's career and her changing life expectations This has been a big issue for multiple people in my social group. It's well known at this point that a relationship where a woman earns more is less stable - https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/02/business/breadwinner-wive... Whether this is due to sexist expectations, increased likelihood of hypergamous relationships in women, etc., is not…
This sounds like sort of an academic take on the pattern of the woman earning more in a hetero couple. My actual experience is just about feelings of equity. There's a person who I love and respect and she's done a lot to advance her own career over the 15 years we've been together. And so I want to be able to give her an equivalent amount to what she gives me.
I have questions buzzing through my head. How does this work? If it's this good, why aren't VC's already doing this amongst portfolio founders? How do you catch companies founded at the same time with close valuations to do "shared pools" equitably given all parameters?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Unsurprising, given the pool makes founders less reliant on them How? The startup still need VCs for funding. If I were a VC, one gripe would be that it might hurt a founder's motivation. At 1% of a founder's equity, it's not so much that they're not working to make the next big thing, but in the back of their mind, they know they might get $1M for it. My other concern is that this almost freerides on the VC model.…
> How? The startup still need VCs for funding. For precisely the reason you set out in your second paragraph. Assuming your startup is in the VC bucket to begin with, you have two choices when you start floundering. Either ask for more money, or shut it down. The latter practically guarantees you leave with nothing, so naturally, you prefer the former. This means VCs are almost always in a position of leverage to ext…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Much of our research has been with founders at YC & 500 (cohorts who represent the Beyond Meats of the world). The majority we spoke to, including the breakout unicorns, stated they would have have participated in equity pooling with their batchmates during the batch. We also learned the darlings of their batch were often not the breakout successes, and later upstaged by others in the batch.
I actually had exactly this idea with my YC knock-off, HMC INQ. The first cohort (5 cos in 2017) I offered them to all pool some of their equity. But first I polled how much each would be willing to give. The results were 0%, 0%, 2%, 5%, and 20%. So, I abandoned it. Ironically the one that offered 20% is doing the best so far.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Unsurprising, given the pool makes founders less reliant on them How? The startup still need VCs for funding. If I were a VC, one gripe would be that it might hurt a founder's motivation. At 1% of a founder's equity, it's not so much that they're not working to make the next big thing, but in the back of their mind, they know they might get $1M for it. My other concern is that this almost freerides on the VC model.…
> How? The startup still need VCs for funding. For precisely the reason you set out in your second paragraph. Assuming your startup is in the VC bucket to begin with, you have two choices when you start floundering. Either ask for more money, or shut it down. The latter practically guarantees you leave with nothing, so naturally, you prefer the former. This means VCs are almost always in a position of leverage to ext…