Money means yes, everything else means no.
[deleted]
“Yes” means “no”: The language of VCs
91–100 of 217 posts
Re: “Yes” means “no”: The language of VCs
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
so basically exponential but fancier.
The reason I don't use the world exponential, is that superlinear growth in a product is generally not exponential. It is usually at best quadratic because there is some kind of network effect at play - the number of edges in a complete graph with `n` vertices is `n(n-1)/2`. The point is that the value of your product to your users should increase with the number of users OR the marginal cost to you of maintaining th…
True viral growth is exponential: each of your users gets you N>1 additional users, and so the growth of your userbase is proportional to your current scale.
Superlinear but subexponential growth can still be pretty impressive, though, especially if it's fast (who cares about 0.1% weekly growth?)
Re: “Yes” means “no”: The language of VCs
#93Have actually read a few founders now who had no connections and just treated VCs as sales targets: 3000+ investor cold emails, 100+ meetings, 3 term sheets, 1 deal. Reading this it makes me wonder if this isn't the best strategy.
I know several successful founders who had to pitch over 100 firms on their financing round. I would say the usual number is probably 30 to 50, but 100 isn't out of the ordinary, especially if you are doing something unusual or new.
I think people underestimate how hard it is to truly evaluate someone else’s business. Imagine you hear bullshit every day - you just can’t call people out on it. So in the end you go with something you can actually properly evaluate because of some inside you have as an investor. Of the this ends up being a theme.
Re: “Yes” means “no”: The language of VCs
#94Also watch Season 2 Episode 1 of "Silicon Valley" :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=857XqOoMm8c
Re: “Yes” means “no”: The language of VCs
#95I’m not in this game, but it sounds like if there’s a condition, the answer is “no,” rather than great advice.
All these anecdotes boil down to VCs saying “if (false),” where what drives the false proposition is your job to guess about and may be useless.
And if that proposition were true, the startup might not need their money or contacts.
Re: “Yes” means “no”: The language of VCs
#96Rubrik for early stage: 1. No product: -> went to stanford or harvard -> funded (no questions asked) -> held director level at faang -> funded -> everyone else -> probably not funded 2. Have product: -> not prestigious -> need real ARR with good growth -> prestigious -> need a product -> everyone else -> not funded
This is super weird to me. In the tech circles I've run in, being from Harvard is about the same as being from UCLA or something. I've never heard it considered a sign of exclusivity. CMU, Stanford, MIT, yes. But Harvard? It's not exactly known for a rigorous engineering program, and even less so the last fifteen years or so.
When looking for CEOs, they don't look for top notch engineering talent, they look for top notch CEO talent, where talent means capability. CEOs do need deep technical understanding, anything else and you have an enviroment that scares away engineers, but they don't need to be the best engineer in the entire company.
If you've been to Harvard, you are on a first name basis with highly ranking finance people. It's not a coincidence that among all the dot com carnage, Amazon emerged as the ecommerce champion: they lived thanks to Jeff Bezos being able to get continued funding despite making continued losses. For that, you need, among other things, good contacts into the finance industry and know how they work and think.
A membership in the exclusive club of Harvard graduates gives you the ability to find customers, advice, funding, employees. Stuff that makes it more likely that your company is more successful.
Re: “Yes” means “no”: The language of VCs
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depends - how much conviction do you have in the product you are building?
I think we’re building a great product. But 1% (undiluted) from an even $100mm company feels like a long shot.
If you stick around, you should regularly get topped up so that dilution doesn't completely destroy your stake.
Your salary should also increase to become competitive with the market as your company continues to raise.
If the founders know what they're doing and you are bringing outsize value to the company, your salary should far exceed the market salary as your company gains success.
Re: “Yes” means “no”: The language of VCs
#98What founders need to understand is that VCs are generally risk averse (which is surprising because they are supposed to be “venture”) and are momentum / fomo driven. Very few VCs think outside the box and can act independently (though they act like they can).
Re: “Yes” means “no”: The language of VCs
#99Also watch Season 2 Episode 1 of "Silicon Valley" :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=857XqOoMm8c
Is that the brain rape one?
Re: “Yes” means “no”: The language of VCs
#100Maybe it's my business major background and my skepticism of all these tech companies that have no reasonable business model to make $'s, but unless there is an obvious need for investment like buying a large amount of real estate or machinery, why would you need VC money to build an app after you've already spent several months doing it? It should run on it's own and not need investor money. You shouldn't be focused…
It "should" but in many cases it doesn't
If you have a great idea for an app or a product and you've started developing it but you need to hire more people to bring that idea to fruition. Rather than spending years of your own time and money to maybe get the idea off the ground, if other people like the idea and want to help contribute via an investment, why not?
Surely your business major would have described the idea of seeking an investment or capital via a business plan. The challenge is that these VC vehicles push this idea of providing an investment tenfold and they have their hands across large industries and portfolios. To the point where they can both invest when you grow and when you fail.