Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that a down round after having raised at a "silly" valuation is worse for founders than a seed round at a terrible valuation? The only way in which this can possibly be true is investor psychology. In purely economic terms, having raised equity capital at what turns out to be a "silly" valuation is unconditionally good for the company and its founders. The company isn't off t…
> Are you saying that a down round after having raised at a "silly" valuation is worse for founders than a seed round at a terrible valuation? Raising at a terrible valuation isn't the alternative. It's easy enough to think through the mechanics of a down round: * Why would a company accept a lower valuation at all? Desperation. They need the capital to continue. * Is a desperate company going to get good terms? No,…
If you previously raised cheap equity capital (i.e at a high valuation) you have presumably used that money to create something of value (a product). Never having had that opportunity is strictly worse.