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

Secret Shuts Down

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 253 posts

Re: Secret Shuts Down

#81

Post by denzil_correa »

danso wrote: post #11

I would've never understood the appeal of these anonymous apps over something like Reddit (in which you can be as anonymous as you'd like) if I hadn't had a job on campus, where YikYak is well-frequented, and a far better source of breaking trivial news (i.e. what is all that yelling outside about?) than anything else...using YikYak periodically has made me realize again how easy it is to underestimate the appeal of…

> I would've never understood the appeal of these anonymous apps over something like Reddit

Recently, we did some analysis (sensitivity, type, potential audience and linguistic characterists) on the content posted on anonymous social media like Whisper [0]. Most of the posts were about Confessions, Relationships, Meetup and QnA/Advice.

[0] http://socialnetworks.mpi-sws.org/papers/anonymity_shades.pd...

Re: Secret Shuts Down

#82

Post by geojageojawg »

abalone wrote: post #35

"Secret will hand its remaining cash back to investors" Minus the $6M the founders took off the table? If they keep it.. if ever there were a case for blacklisting founders, this is it. It is definitely NOT cool to pull a move like that. You want to cash out early a little because you've been boostrapping, ok, but if you then bail on the company and shut it down within a year, then you start to look like a fraud who…

> If they keep it.. if ever there were a case for blacklisting founders, this is it.

Hell no to this horrific and toxic idea that we should blacklist anybody who sells equity and then fails.

Can you please identify yourself, so we can all be well-informed that if we go into business with you, we're going into business with somebody who believes in the public shaming and blacklisting of those who take chances and fail?

You're not cool dude. Not cool at all.

And I say that as somebody who always thought secret was disgusting and value-destroying.

Re: Secret Shuts Down

#83

Post by denzil_correa »

fredfoobar42 wrote: post #71

Good, and good riddance. Anyone who invested in Secret is a fucking moron. You can't monetize anonymous messaging, and no established company would buy technology they could build in an afternoon hackathon for the cost of a couple cases of Red Bull. If you need proof, 4chan's run at a loss for over a decade. Any investor in a VC fund that invested in Secret should sue their fund for mismanagement of money.

> You can't monetize anonymous messaging

I have always been curious about this part. What are the reasons you think one can not monetize anonymous messaging?

Re: Secret Shuts Down

#84

Post by diminoten »

downandout wrote: post #34
sharkweek wrote: post #3

For the curious, pulled their deal history from PitchBook: Secret raised their B last July at a post valuation just over 130M ( http://i.imgur.com/jNXw5PZ.png ). They had some major investors backing them up, and then the hype train just... stopped. I remember so many people being so high on it when it launched, with several friends all raving about how fun/addicting it was, then just poof it disappeared from convers…

> http://i.imgur.com/jNXw5PZ.png Here was the intended use of the $25M: "The funding will be used to implement two new features, a Facebook login and the ability to follow posts on a certain topic" . This is what is wrong with Silicon Valley today. An afternoon project for a single developer gets $25M from investors. Please, someone give me just $10M....I've already implemented Facebook login for my apps.

I am beyond certain that investors did not fork over $25M for the two features outlined. There's simply no way that's all they were spending the money for.

Re: Secret Shuts Down

#85

Post by prostoalex »

abalone wrote: post #35

"Secret will hand its remaining cash back to investors" Minus the $6M the founders took off the table? If they keep it.. if ever there were a case for blacklisting founders, this is it. It is definitely NOT cool to pull a move like that. You want to cash out early a little because you've been boostrapping, ok, but if you then bail on the company and shut it down within a year, then you start to look like a fraud who…

I'm assuming there was full understanding that some of the money will go to founders, with usual arguments - "brings long-term focus", "takes care of day-to-day expenses", "encourages building for the long-term instead of flipping a company", etc.

With that said, with Odeo, one thing that went down in history books is how Evan Williams graciously purchased the shares out of his personal fortune, thus making every investor even.

Re: Secret Shuts Down

#86

Post by timr »

nlh wrote: post #55

This has been a fascinating story to watch unfold (and experience as a user.) When Secret came out, the addiction bug bit me hard too -- it was _extremely_ compelling. I posted. My friends posted. Everyone was checking Secret obsessively. People were "communicating" with their exes (or so they thought), people were guessing who was posting what. It was fun. It was interesting. It pulled some emotional heartstrings (I…

"When Secret came out, the addiction bug bit me hard too -- it was _extremely_ compelling....Then it took a nasty turn. There was gossip, there were attacks. They didn't get too bad, but the tone changed."

And all of that, from what I recall, in the course of maybe three months. It wasn't hard to predict the decline -- the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory has been around since what, 2004?

Maybe the investors who dump money into this kind of flash-in-the-pan stuff ought to wait a few minutes before signing the term sheets. But, oh yeah...because we're in a white-hot investment market, the Fear of Missing Out (aka Fear of the Greater Fool) doesn't let you stop to think.

Re: Secret Shuts Down

#87

Post by maceo »

I've used Secret several times a week since they launched. Although the most recent redesign was panned from every corner, I found it to be the best anonymous messaging UI, by far. The friendly branding and overall feel of the design put it way ahead of its competitors, IMO. I discovered that their branding was actually outsourced to these guys: https://dribbble.com/shots/1854215-The-Secret-s-Out

I would love to see their series A and B pitch decks -- how were they able to convince investors to hand over so much cash with no serious monetization strategy and nothing more than a temporary download spike? Add that to the fact that they were able to take 6m off the table. I can't see any rational investor thinking Secret for Business was actually going to bring in revenue? Props to Mr Byttow for raising the money, building out a great product, and returning the capital when he ran out of options... Can't wait to read the post-mortem.

Re: Secret Shuts Down

#88

Post by tdaltonc »

smt88 wrote: post #70
zaidf wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. What do you mean "if they take it..."? It is their money. They gave away personal equity that was at the time worth $6M for the cash. 2. It is ridiculous to assume they pulled any move. Startups are a high risk gamble and the VCs who put money in them know it better than anyone else does. So they didn't pull a move on anyone. 3. Let's say a company raises $1M on a $3M valuation. Then in one year the valuation goes…

I agree that there isn't necessarily anything unethical about this. The investors knew what they were doing. However, founders who would pocket $6M from a not-even-close-to-profitable company are probably not good founders, or they don't believe in the company. Either way, their behavior doesn't inspire confidence.

I think that you are totally wrong about these founders in particular and what taking money off of the table revels about founders generally.

Most founders are extremely protective of their startup. It's their baby, and their livelihood. They'll do anything to keep it alive. Most "poor"(When you see a founder take a big chunk of cash from an early round, you shouldn't think, "they don't believe in what they're doing." You should think, "These investors (who know these founders a lot better then I do) think that they are so awesome, and have such a high chance of doing something transformative, they are basically giving them enough money that they will never have to worry about money again."

Re: Secret Shuts Down

#89

Post by [deleted] »

smt88 wrote: post #70
zaidf wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. What do you mean "if they take it..."? It is their money. They gave away personal equity that was at the time worth $6M for the cash. 2. It is ridiculous to assume they pulled any move. Startups are a high risk gamble and the VCs who put money in them know it better than anyone else does. So they didn't pull a move on anyone. 3. Let's say a company raises $1M on a $3M valuation. Then in one year the valuation goes…

I agree that there isn't necessarily anything unethical about this. The investors knew what they were doing. However, founders who would pocket $6M from a not-even-close-to-profitable company are probably not good founders, or they don't believe in the company. Either way, their behavior doesn't inspire confidence.

[deleted]

Re: Secret Shuts Down

#90

Post by outericky »

benologist wrote: post #29
josu wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know, at a 130m valuation, a 100x exit was no longer possible, and even a 10x didn't even seem that likely.

130m x 100 is only 1/4th of uber, not really impossible anymore.

Uber hasn't exited, so that argument has no basis. Can maybe compare to whatsapp... and that's probably what investors did.
Post reply on HN