4 ms·

Can I just say that the fact that either party here is duking this out in a public forum is just..... unprofessional? Especially from the VC firm itself? I su

by dedward 17y ago

Can I just say that the fact that either party here is duking this out in a public forum is just..... unprofessional? Especially from the VC firm itself? I suppose I'm a newcomer to this "VC/incubator/startup" community - but in any other life situation, when I decide to pack up and move somewhere far away, I make sure I have stuff in writing, and cash in the bank, and all my i's dotted and t's crossed before I quit my old job and jump on a plane. I also make sure, as best I can, that expectations are the same on both sides. I don't see why this is any different whether it's VC capital for some wild idea or a serious business proposal or just a plain old job somewhere else... what ever happened to common sense?

puredemo 17y ago
Well, unfortunately I think Bootup Labs had to respond to the claim that they "had no money".
- jacquesm 17y ago
  It seems that much was true though, at least it was at the time. When you commit to funding 7 start-ups you have to have the full amount for that sitting in the bank. If you have only enough to fund four then the correct claim would be 'not enough money to cover all investments', which is only a small step from 'no money' since it depends on which startup you're looking at whether or not they have money. If there had been only three start ups and 0 money then the situation as far as those three startups is concerned would be exactly the same. It's not for them to look in to the bank accounts of their investors, but if you're not getting what is promised then 'you have no money' turned out to be a pretty good guess at the state of affairs. "Not enough money" would have been more accurate though.
cperciva 17y ago
Can I just say that the fact that either party here is duking this out in a public forum is just..... unprofessional? Perhaps a bit unprofessional, but I'm personally glad it happens. The startup/VC world is all about reputation, and anything which moves the world from "talk to your friends at other startups and find out if they know anything about X" to "google for X and find out what people are saying about it" is a good thing for startups who are less than fully connected in the gossip network. Think of this as the natural continuation of what thefunded started. Of course, as a Vancouverite I'm sad that it's Bootup Labs which is getting a bad reputation like this. :-/
- 9oliYQjP 17y ago
  Quite honestly YC is the only one of these kinds of ventures that I trust. And even in the case of YC, if I were to advise a budding pair of young entrepreneurs, I'd tell them to move back in with their parents for a year, get a low skill but high paying job to give them sustenance money (e.g., bartend or barista), and focus on implementing their idea. There are nice YC value adds like being introduced to influential folks. But part of being a business person is finding a way to get to these folks anyway. Why pay for this service when you can get them for free? So many startup folks are attracted to these kinds of programs because I think they mimic the illusion of safety that school offered. You have to be "accepted" and it's not a venture but a "program". Everything is geared towards creating this sense of safety without pointing out you are giving up a lot for it. Know why these programs want to save you the hassle of doing your own incorporation paperwork that took me a day to figure out when I was a teenager? Because they have to put clauses in that will help them, not you. Again, I'm not saying these ventures are sinister. But you can get by without them and in fact may become a better business person for it.
  - realitycheques 17y ago
    The differences is that the YC founders are successful entrepreneurs who made money for their investors before YC and since. Google the history of Spinway, bankruptcy, then sold, Peerflix-a VC fire sale, Bryght-private sale for loss then shut down.
willbradley 17y ago
One problem is that to create something that's never been done before, and devote the required amount of resources to give it a passing shot at success, requires a certain level of naivete and hubris -- the exact qualities that good investors suppress. So for investors to take advantage of naive entrepreneurs by failing to give full disclosure up front and failing to "do unto them as you'd have others do unto you" is an especially sour pill. Think Grapes of Wrath: it's all just business until the lives of ordinary people are ruined.
dagw 17y ago
Sometimes you have to take risks to win big. If an opportunity arises you sometimes have to choose between jumping at it and risk falling or watching it slip away. Honestly, if I where in their situation I probably would have done the same thing, not because I'm dumb or naive or unaware of the risks, but simply because, fuck it, life is too short to always do the dull and sensible thing. And who knows, it might end up being awesome.

by dedward 17y ago

puredemo 17y ago

Well, unfortunately I think Bootup Labs had to respond to the claim that they "had no money".

jacquesm 17y ago
It seems that much was true though, at least it was at the time. When you commit to funding 7 start-ups you have to have the full amount for that sitting in the bank. If you have only enough to fund four then the correct claim would be 'not enough money to cover all investments', which is only a small step from 'no money' since it depends on which startup you're looking at whether or not they have money. If there had been only three start ups and 0 money then the situation as far as those three startups is concerned would be exactly the same. It's not for them to look in to the bank accounts of their investors, but if you're not getting what is promised then 'you have no money' turned out to be a pretty good guess at the state of affairs. "Not enough money" would have been more accurate though.

cperciva 17y ago

Can I just say that the fact that either party here is duking this out in a public forum is just..... unprofessional? Perhaps a bit unprofessional, but I'm personally glad it happens. The startup/VC world is all about reputation, and anything which moves the world from "talk to your friends at other startups and find out if they know anything about X" to "google for X and find out what people are saying about it" is a good thing for startups who are less than fully connected in the gossip network. Think of this as the natural continuation of what thefunded started. Of course, as a Vancouverite I'm sad that it's Bootup Labs which is getting a bad reputation like this. :-/

9oliYQjP 17y ago
Quite honestly YC is the only one of these kinds of ventures that I trust. And even in the case of YC, if I were to advise a budding pair of young entrepreneurs, I'd tell them to move back in with their parents for a year, get a low skill but high paying job to give them sustenance money (e.g., bartend or barista), and focus on implementing their idea. There are nice YC value adds like being introduced to influential folks. But part of being a business person is finding a way to get to these folks anyway. Why pay for this service when you can get them for free? So many startup folks are attracted to these kinds of programs because I think they mimic the illusion of safety that school offered. You have to be "accepted" and it's not a venture but a "program". Everything is geared towards creating this sense of safety without pointing out you are giving up a lot for it. Know why these programs want to save you the hassle of doing your own incorporation paperwork that took me a day to figure out when I was a teenager? Because they have to put clauses in that will help them, not you. Again, I'm not saying these ventures are sinister. But you can get by without them and in fact may become a better business person for it.
- realitycheques 17y ago
  The differences is that the YC founders are successful entrepreneurs who made money for their investors before YC and since. Google the history of Spinway, bankruptcy, then sold, Peerflix-a VC fire sale, Bryght-private sale for loss then shut down.

willbradley 17y ago

One problem is that to create something that's never been done before, and devote the required amount of resources to give it a passing shot at success, requires a certain level of naivete and hubris -- the exact qualities that good investors suppress. So for investors to take advantage of naive entrepreneurs by failing to give full disclosure up front and failing to "do unto them as you'd have others do unto you" is an especially sour pill. Think Grapes of Wrath: it's all just business until the lives of ordinary people are ruined.

dagw 17y ago

Sometimes you have to take risks to win big. If an opportunity arises you sometimes have to choose between jumping at it and risk falling or watching it slip away. Honestly, if I where in their situation I probably would have done the same thing, not because I'm dumb or naive or unaware of the risks, but simply because, fuck it, life is too short to always do the dull and sensible thing. And who knows, it might end up being awesome.