> These often-discussed milestones have lead a lot of founders to believe they’re ready to raise when they’re not. The word here is led , not its metallic homonym. I do not understand why this mistake appears to be increasing in occurrence over the last few years.
> I do not understand why this mistake appears to be increasing in occurrence over the last few years.
> These often-discussed milestones have lead a lot of founders to believe they’re ready to raise when they’re not. The word here is led , not its metallic homonym. I do not understand why this mistake appears to be increasing in occurrence over the last few years.
> I do not understand why this mistake appears to be increasing in occurrence over the last few years. Autocorrect, perhaps?
Perhaps? I’ve never seen autocorrect suggest lead when I’m typing led, but maybe it happens to others for sure. On the other hand, I see it not only far more frequently in online usage, but far more consistently, as if people think lead is a homonym of the same-spelling sort, not the same-sounding sort.
All the founding rounds are discrete events. I wonder if there's an opportunity to have a way to do funding in a more continuous way. You can get more people chipping in funding at random points in the life of the company that unlocks over time.
You can do that, it's just stressful. Big company analogy: it's like what if instead of getting headcount allocated just once a year, you had to re-argue about how much headcount your team deserved constantly. ;-)
Regular person analogy: what if you had to negotiate your salary for the week every Monday.
All the founding rounds are discrete events. I wonder if there's an opportunity to have a way to do funding in a more continuous way. You can get more people chipping in funding at random points in the life of the company that unlocks over time.
That happens in angel/pre-seed/seed rounds. They're usually much smaller contributions and are much easier to do because you're not giving out equity, you're technically taking debt which will convert to equity on the next equity financing round (usually series A).
Also after an equity round, investors typically have pro-rata rights so you can't take any money without getting their permission and ask them if they'd like to contribute more to maintain their share.
You can do that, it's just stressful. Big company analogy: it's like what if instead of getting headcount allocated just once a year, you had to re-argue about how much headcount your team deserved constantly. ;-)
Regular person analogy: what if you had to negotiate your salary for the week every Monday.
What if you were notified what your salary would be every month through an app (uber)?
I didn't downvote you, but MM in Roman numerals is million. It is also common enough to represent roman numerals in lowercase that mm, as used here, is totally valid.
Actually, MM in Roman numerals is 2,000, not a million.
You’re right. Don’t know what I was thinking. Guess it’s an accounting only thing
A good chunk of this information would be useful to non-YC companies as well, I really hope they will open up the bits that do not require physical presence in SV.
That's definitely part of our plan. We'd like to expose both data and some of the tools we're building.
Thanks for the quick reply to this - as has been said, that's a huge benefit, and it's great to see. How do you see it working in practice?
All the founding rounds are discrete events. I wonder if there's an opportunity to have a way to do funding in a more continuous way. You can get more people chipping in funding at random points in the life of the company that unlocks over time.
The closest is convertible equity, adopted by a good number of startups during their seed stage. You can read about SAFE by YC and KISS by 500 Startups, 2 informal instruments / agreements used to do convertible equity.