131–140 of 253 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Moderation on 4chan and /b/ has increased over the last year. Mostly to prevent the posting of peoples personal information. But the posting of shock images has also decreased. I don't know if they are being removed as well.
Yes, so-called "Social Justice Warriors" took over and made once uncensored board into heavily censored tumbr.
The founder pretends that the investors have put money on the table to build a great team and a great product. If the problem resides in the product, I think pivoting is the least they can do in respect of their investors. Giving back the money is ridiculous, especially when they pretend to be guided by the motto "Innovation requires failure".
It's likely the investors were investing in "the next big social network". When it became clear that this wasn't going to be successful, they were faced with the choice of get 80% of their money back, or to "invest" (as it were) that money in the remaining team.
Maybe the remaining team had an idea, but the investor didnt want to invest in that idea. Or maybe the team was tired and didn't want to continue, and the investor would prefer their money back then try to force the team to continue.
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…
"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…
Here they are going home and saving some money too. Would you have the same view if Secret went on to make billions and require the Investors to pay the equity back to the founders. 6m could have been a billion there.
The only negative is if investors think the founders lacked imagination to put the money to use with a innovative Pivot.
Maybe there was no pivot in sight and then the best option is to return the rest of money and keep the 6m money the Investors gave up earlier for their big bet.
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.
it's very easy to believe the worst of others. but it's beneath you.
"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…
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…
That sort of thing in the public markets would prompt an SEC investigation for insider trading (despite it being "their money"). In the startup world it comes down to, these are not folks investors should be trusting.
"It rode the hype to massive funding, which allowed the two founders, David Byttow and Bader-Wechseler to each take $3 million off the table. They essentially traded stock for cash, putting money in their pockets though the business wasn’t earning any." Wow. I guess their round was oversubscribed so they were able to sell this to the vcs. This is the first case where I heard of where a startup failed recently after f…
So yeah some VC's may use this argument but if the startup isn't desperate its the VC who will have to make the concession.
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…
> Then, at least in SF, it started being almost entirely about gay sexual fantasies. Friends in my circle started using it less, so it got less interesting to me. Eventually I stopped using it when nobody I knew was posting. This happened in Boston as well. It was really odd how rapidly it changed from a mix of different types of posts to nearly all gay sex posts. I wonder if that won't flow over to Yik Yak now that…
Yaks can be raunch as all get out, but there has to be something for the average person to relate to. If you follow it closely, you'll see there are many posts made while the author has lost their mind with hormones, but they're voted off in about 120 seconds.
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…
You're conflating valuation changes with cashing out. There's not problem, ethically, if a valuation swings rapidly either way. But cashing out ahead of a massive failure is a totally different move. That sort of thing in the public markets would prompt an SEC investigation for insider trading (despite it being "their money"). In the startup world it comes down to, these are not folks investors should be trusting.
Or "trust these guys: if they fail, they won't bullshit you and just give you the money they have remaining back."
It's all about perspective. Luckily, most investors don't think like you. Ones that do don't survive that long in the business.
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…
You're conflating valuation changes with cashing out. There's not problem, ethically, if a valuation swings rapidly either way. But cashing out ahead of a massive failure is a totally different move. That sort of thing in the public markets would prompt an SEC investigation for insider trading (despite it being "their money"). In the startup world it comes down to, these are not folks investors should be trusting.