11–20 of 116 posts
@Indie.vc ... you spent a ton of time writing this post only to have it paywalled by medium. I can't read it... Ditch medium as they aren't compatible with your business model :-P
It's not paywalled. You can read it with a free account.
@Indie.vc ... you spent a ton of time writing this post only to have it paywalled by medium. I can't read it... Ditch medium as they aren't compatible with your business model :-P
It's not paywalled. You can read it with a free account.
The Indie.vc model is contrarian and probably doing well. It will continue to do well as it becomes imitated. And then the cycle will repeat. So keep your eye on unpopular unicorns!
@Indie.vc ... you spent a ton of time writing this post only to have it paywalled by medium. I can't read it... Ditch medium as they aren't compatible with your business model :-P
Right now we're seeing a trend of larger companies taking an ever larger piece of the market share, and the total number of firms decreasing. While encouraging founders to form smaller companies with shorter time to profitability undoubtedly results in more companies surviving 3, 5, and 7 years after founding, that's not what we're optimizing for. An investment strategy with high rates of failure, but producing larger companies with those few successes is still yields the potential for larger overall returns.
1. What does it mean by 10% vs. 44% of companies surviving? Presumably it means that 10% of traditionally funded companies exist X years after founding versus 44% of Indie.vc founded companies. But this is a strange metric to give without specifying how many years we're talking about.
So this is initial seed/angel venture capital without huge ROI expectations? Is that the idea? If so, how is it different from what VCs are doing now?
Also, from the article "And founders can even buy back the stakes (ranging between 10% and 15%) by hitting certain revenue targets"
10-15% interest on a crazy high-risk loan makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever.
@Indie.vc ... you spent a ton of time writing this post only to have it paywalled by medium. I can't read it... Ditch medium as they aren't compatible with your business model :-P
@Indie.vc ... you spent a ton of time writing this post only to have it paywalled by medium. I can't read it... Ditch medium as they aren't compatible with your business model :-P
@Indie.vc ... you spent a ton of time writing this post only to have it paywalled by medium. I can't read it... Ditch medium as they aren't compatible with your business model :-P
It's not paywalled. You can read it with a free account.
So this is initial seed/angel venture capital without huge ROI expectations? Is that the idea? If so, how is it different from what VCs are doing now?
VC without huge ROI expectations doesn't work. Like the actual economics don't work. I don't really understand the point of any of this. VCs need massive outsized returns because 99% of the companies they invest in will return $0 to the fund. You need that one company that returns the entire fund (ex: $500m) + some percentage. Also, from the article "And founders can even buy back the stakes (ranging between 10% and…
The article mentions the indie.vc "mortality rate" is 10% whereas for VC-backed ventures it's 44%. Granted, just because a company is alive doesn't mean it's making the investors much money.
I imagine having more companies around for longer would ultimately mean a lot of little payoffs that cover their own investments rather than one big payoff that covers every other investment.