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

A startup doesn't need to be a unicorn

mattgiustwilliamson.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 363 posts

Re: A startup doesn't need to be a unicorn

#81

Post by zwnow »

i_am_a_peasant wrote: post #80
zwnow wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also connected to so much bureaucracy that you almost need to hire someone for that alone, because you wont have as much time for your actual business. Founding a company in Germany is so much unnecessary paperwork its crazy. Single handedly the only reason I will never try it in my home country.

Some still do it. And while I would never start my own company in Germany. Working at a startup in Germnay is going pretty well for me so far. 1.5 years in.

Ye been working in a startup as well. I just witness all the appointments my boss has to go through and I could never do that. But I'm also the type of person not picking up their phone when it rings.

Re: A startup doesn't need to be a unicorn

#82

Post by marcinzm »

flir wrote: post #73
marcinzm wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That just sounds like traditional small businesses. Which is cool but re-branding them to "startup" seems silly. The US has 35 million small businesses and maybe 1 million would qualify as startups.

You said this below, too. What's the difference? In my mind a startup is just a newly established business, but you seem to have a different vision?

Startups aim to grow quickly.

Every single definition highlights that difference versus traditional small businesses. Trying to re-brand small businesses into "startups" for the cool name factor just seems silly to me. If you're making a sustainable small business then call it that. Don't call it a startup. You'll get more customers that way as well and more relevant business contacts.

People care about startups because of the high growth rate. Renaming a small business to a startup achieves as much as slapping a porsche logo onto a honda civic. The civic is a solid car but you won't make people'd heads turn with that logo on it or not.

Re: A startup doesn't need to be a unicorn

#83

Post by jimmydddd »

senko wrote: post #39
Etheryte wrote: post #8

Well yes, that's called a regular company. Not sure if I'm missing something here?

Regular companies aren't given $1m they don't have to pay back. They have to get loans and founders are usually on the hook if the venture fails. This is different from what the article advocates.

I run a small 20 year old service business in the US. Just getting a $300K line of credit from a bank required a lot of paperwork and both the company and me personally being on the hook. It took about a month to secure. In contrast, on a different occasion a secured a personal home equity line of credit for $100K in a bout 5 minutes.

Re: A startup doesn't need to be a unicorn

#84

Post by edanm »

Etheryte wrote: post #8

Well yes, that's called a regular company. Not sure if I'm missing something here?

It's not a "regular" company, because it's still raising angel investment, presumably from the tech/startup ecosystem.

A more common route for non-tech-startup companies is to get money via debt - in other words, borrow money from a bank or financiers. That's a different model to with different risk/reward characteristics, but it's how most non-innovative entrepreneurship is done, I believe - things like building restaurants, buildings, etc.

This is indeed a "middle path" in terms of raising money by selling equity, but selling a smaller amount of it for less money, which keeps more ownership stake and control in the hands of the founders, but necessitates slower spending cause they raised less capital.

Re: A startup doesn't need to be a unicorn

#85

Post by javierluraschi »

marcinzm wrote: post #82
flir wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You said this below, too. What's the difference? In my mind a startup is just a newly established business, but you seem to have a different vision?

Startups aim to grow quickly. Every single definition highlights that difference versus traditional small businesses. Trying to re-brand small businesses into "startups" for the cool name factor just seems silly to me. If you're making a sustainable small business then call it that. Don't call it a startup. You'll get more customers that way as well and more relevant business contacts. People care about startups beca…

From your point of view, when does a startup is no longer a startup? Seed, Series A, B, C, pre-IPO? Can you be a startup after IPO?

Re: A startup doesn't need to be a unicorn

#86

Post by lelanthran »

flir wrote: post #73
marcinzm wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That just sounds like traditional small businesses. Which is cool but re-branding them to "startup" seems silly. The US has 35 million small businesses and maybe 1 million would qualify as startups.

You said this below, too. What's the difference? In my mind a startup is just a newly established business, but you seem to have a different vision?

> What's the difference? In my mind a startup is just a newly established business, but you seem to have a different vision?

A commonly accepted answer to this question is "The exit strategy does not involve 100X[1] valuation"

[1] Pick the appropriate multiplier.

Re: A startup doesn't need to be a unicorn

#87

Post by zipy124 »

senko wrote: post #29

I do like the idea in general and feel there's a lot of room for improvement between the (VC / bootstrapping) extremes. However, the middle path from the article presumes the existence of VCs willing to join you on that path. The article waves this away with: > angel investors are generally more open to a 2-3x ROI For a $1M round you'd need to find 10-20 such angels (assuming $50k-$100k average check size) willing to…

For smaller amounts of monies such as £250k or £1mm, it is much easier to get funding, since a decent amount of countries offer tax relief to the investors for example in the UK through EIS, SEIS, or even VCT. These offer advantages to angels over the VC's.

In addition the whole point of this piece is that you are generally looking to grow slower, thus having smaller capital requirements and burn rate.

Re: A startup doesn't need to be a unicorn

#88

Post by esperent »

marcinzm wrote: post #82
flir wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You said this below, too. What's the difference? In my mind a startup is just a newly established business, but you seem to have a different vision?

Startups aim to grow quickly. Every single definition highlights that difference versus traditional small businesses. Trying to re-brand small businesses into "startups" for the cool name factor just seems silly to me. If you're making a sustainable small business then call it that. Don't call it a startup. You'll get more customers that way as well and more relevant business contacts. People care about startups beca…

> Startups aim to grow quickly

Maybe this is a US centric definition. It's definitely not what I mean when I talk about a startup with European or Asian tech founders.

Post reply on HN