Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“Yes” means “no”: The language of VCs

jacobbartlett.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 217 posts

Re: “Yes” means “no”: The language of VCs

#171

Post by j16sdiz »

oblio wrote: post #157
benjaminwootton wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A less cynical take is that it allows you to run at a loss for a very long time as you build revenue and market share. This can be right up to the time that you exit.

> A less cynical take is that it allows you to run at a loss for a very long time as you build revenue and market share You're saying the same thing as the grandparent comment and in various places in the world this would be considered dumping/subsidizing and illegal. Yet here we are and the enshittification continues.

I think dumping/subsidizing is illegal only in the context of international trade.

Re: “Yes” means “no”: The language of VCs

#172

Post by j-a-a-p »

rmbyrro wrote: post #165
j-a-a-p wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm, my experience with one of the largest investors in NL was a full verbal 'yes'. The investor was actively involved in the hiring process (that is how I got in). A founder put in his cash (think a small apartment) for a lower single digit percentage of agreed valuation. I signed for something smaller / similar but without bringing in cash. In reality the money never arrived, they forked in few times 250k. The othe…

What is NL, the Netherlands? One of the largest investors in a given location might not be "top-tier" in the overall VC market.

Yes, but it is not a VC. If they would, measured by asset size they would easily fit in the top-10 VCs of the US (United States).

Re: “Yes” means “no”: The language of VCs

#173

Post by wslh »

j-a-a-p wrote: post #172
rmbyrro wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is NL, the Netherlands? One of the largest investors in a given location might not be "top-tier" in the overall VC market.

Yes, but it is not a VC. If they would, measured by asset size they would easily fit in the top-10 VCs of the US (United States).

It is not about asset size only but real experience and a portfolio leading rounds.

Re: “Yes” means “no”: The language of VCs

#174

Post by wslh »

j16sdiz wrote: post #171
oblio wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A less cynical take is that it allows you to run at a loss for a very long time as you build revenue and market share You're saying the same thing as the grandparent comment and in various places in the world this would be considered dumping/subsidizing and illegal. Yet here we are and the enshittification continues.

I think dumping/subsidizing is illegal only in the context of international trade.

Legal doesn't mean that is ethical. Just saying that this is an interesting topic that was discussed for years in HN: at the end is it similar to dumping?

Re: “Yes” means “no”: The language of VCs

#175

Post by acjohnson55 »

I think most founders (understandably) don't know how the capital marketplace works, and so they create these codebooks for translating the things VCs say into a mental framework that makes sense to them. I don't know what the answer is, other than simply building the right company at the right time. There are people who are very good at navigating the fundraising space, but that usually comes from having expertise and/or connections prior to founding a company. Once you are in the middle of trying to start a company, it's a little late. Your best bet is to find a way to demonstrate that you're on to something big, then find people who can see that she vouch for it.

Re: “Yes” means “no”: The language of VCs

#176

Post by guappa »

daft_pink wrote: post #30

Maybe 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…

Because you need to spend millions in advertising to get your app installed by someone.

Re: “Yes” means “no”: The language of VCs

#177

Post by brabel »

j-a-a-p wrote: post #159
FreakLegion wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the most accurate comment I've seen here. Sequoia, Benchmark, Kleiner, etc. will all tell you "no" and why with minimal turnaround time. The same is true for second-tier players like Craft, smaller shops started by breakaways from the big firms, and scouts. Good VCs are professionals and have no interest in wasting your time or theirs. A "no" now never precludes future participation anyway; they don't need to…

Hmm, my experience with one of the largest investors in NL was a full verbal 'yes'. The investor was actively involved in the hiring process (that is how I got in). A founder put in his cash (think a small apartment) for a lower single digit percentage of agreed valuation. I signed for something smaller / similar but without bringing in cash. In reality the money never arrived, they forked in few times 250k. The othe…

> But in the end in this world signed contracts and wire transfers are the only credible thing.

I don't have any experience in this business, but why would anyone think otherwise? Did you spend your own money on a verbal promise of investment without any signed document??

Re: “Yes” means “no”: The language of VCs

#178

Post by 97-109-107 »

satvikpendem wrote: post #64

If you know marketing, you don't need VCs (unless you are in a capital-intensive business like rocket building). The problem is that most people who get funded are technical and do not know marketing and growing organically. However, there are lots of businesses that grow extremely well simply due to the cofounders having previous experience with marketing, often in a professional capacity. My go-to example is Lemlis…

I'm not dismissive of businesses like Lemlist, but would propose another angle.

I find that businesses that are spin out from agency models are particular, inherit a strong characteristic and outlook similar to agencies. This is not a critique of their model per say, but an observation that leads me to be hesitant to take advice from agency-born models and apply to more typical product-focused B2B or B2C settings.

This leads me also to note that that the nature of content exposes us to a lot of people who believe in posting content. I'm not against it, but would like to fight the common urge towards content as the best strategy to go to market. However, given that the medium is message, we don't hear from people who don't need to post to do business.

Re: “Yes” means “no”: The language of VCs

#180

Post by blitzar »

wavemode wrote: post #44
daft_pink wrote: post #30

Maybe 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…

The goal of most Silicon Valley founders isn't profit, but growth. Quickly increase users, quickly increase revenue, quickly increase headcount. Quickly become a large company which can be sold for billions. Or, never reach sustainability and eventually go bankrupt - this outcome is actually still good for the founders since they probably walk away with millions in their pockets (from paying themselves seven-figure s…

The goal of most Silicon Valley founders isn't profit or growth, but exit.

Whatever gets them there fastest is the 2nd priority.

Post reply on HN