51–60 of 114 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
meta: in the interests of continuing intelligent discussion on HN, please just say what you mean instead of "this". It's an infection that's been spreading for at least a few months here.
"This" (noun): same as "I agree."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
meta: in the interests of continuing intelligent discussion on HN, please just say what you mean instead of "this". It's an infection that's been spreading for at least a few months here.
"This" (noun): same as "I agree."
Better way: just use your own words, be authentic. Pretend like you're Steve Jobs, and each word you write is your next product.
Impressive move by Spark, who have now put other VCs in the awkward position of explaining why they don't do the same.
Not that a traditional VC will ever hand me a term sheet (I wouldn't approach one), but if one did and it specified that I had to pay their legal expenses, I would reject it on principle. It's rather underhanded, and I would immediately begin scouring the paperwork to see what other sleazy tactics they were employing.
And you should scour all the paperwork regardless of whether or not that clause was present, even better, have a lawyer that you pay (preferably a competent one) help with the scouring.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"This" (noun): same as "I agree."
That's the problem cited, though. Hacker News, as a community, has developed a comical, pathological aversion to any sort of agreement. Every nit must be picked – otherwise the discussion fails to be "intelligent."
Impressive move by Spark, who have now put other VCs in the awkward position of explaining why they don't do the same.
Not that a traditional VC will ever hand me a term sheet (I wouldn't approach one), but if one did and it specified that I had to pay their legal expenses, I would reject it on principle. It's rather underhanded, and I would immediately begin scouring the paperwork to see what other sleazy tactics they were employing.
Impressive move by Spark, who have now put other VCs in the awkward position of explaining why they don't do the same.
Not that a traditional VC will ever hand me a term sheet (I wouldn't approach one), but if one did and it specified that I had to pay their legal expenses, I would reject it on principle. It's rather underhanded, and I would immediately begin scouring the paperwork to see what other sleazy tactics they were employing.
Doesn't this just mean Spark will have a little less money to actually invest, thus will need to invest at slightly lower valuations to get the same returns, and companies will accept those lower valuations because they no longer have to pay the legal bills? Of course that's a huge simplification, and I'm in favor of reducing sneaky terms that can take entrepreneurs by surprise, so I'm not complaining.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not that a traditional VC will ever hand me a term sheet (I wouldn't approach one), but if one did and it specified that I had to pay their legal expenses, I would reject it on principle. It's rather underhanded, and I would immediately begin scouring the paperwork to see what other sleazy tactics they were employing.
If you were in a position to read / sign such a terms sheet then you may want to ask why it specifies that before you reject it out of hand. And you should scour all the paperwork regardless of whether or not that clause was present, even better, have a lawyer that you pay (preferably a competent one) help with the scouring.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you were in a position to read / sign such a terms sheet then you may want to ask why it specifies that before you reject it out of hand. And you should scour all the paperwork regardless of whether or not that clause was present, even better, have a lawyer that you pay (preferably a competent one) help with the scouring.
Of course anyone would use a lawyer in such a situation. I'm just saying that it is indicative of a hair-splitting, underhanded mentality that would raise immediate red flags about doing business with them in the first place.
I believe you may be wrong about that. But it appears you've now found a good match in Spark! On the down side, it may then be the only game in town for you, there are good reasons for the 'company pays fees' rule, see elsewhere in this thread for one possible reason.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would be true if this were morally neutral. But when you're fixing an abuse that's justified by all participants as being standard practice, the right metaphor is not critical mass but a crack in dam.
Well put pg. It isn't that the money was that material, it just felt wrong and petty that it was being done in the first place so we wanted to fix it. Just feels silly we didn't do it a lot sooner.
If so you may just end up making the tax man happy and reducing the amount you can invest by whatever sales tax applies in your location. Depending on your process costs and deal-flow this could add up over time.