4 ms·
This article's main table suffers from the inaccurate assumption that funding round size and frequency correlates with promise. What's worse, Quid is including
by blueyes 10y ago
This article's main table suffers from the inaccurate assumption that funding round size and frequency correlates with promise. What's worse, Quid is including a "hotness" factor for the sector the startups work in, so the piece can be sure to include the most faddish, hyped technologies currently in SV. Not impressed, but great PR for Quid.
- fragsworth 10y agoI agree. The numbers they provided are absolutely useless. Better numbers would be "Size of last round", "Days since last round", "Valuation of last round", and "Founder ownership after last round".
- peter422 10y agoCompanies routinely lie about when funding round happen to maximize news impact. They'll generally sit on the news until they can announce it with some other big feature or release or something (because they know without fail all the tech news will report fundraising rounds). So "days since last fundraising" or "days between fundraising rounds" are going to be very inaccurate metrics.
- tenkabuto 10y agoI'm very out of the VC funding route-loop. Is the time between funding rounds really measured in days, these days?
- scosman 10y agoCorrelating VC investment to promise is a bit of a leap. Identifying hot VCs by the number of promising startups in their portfolio, when "promise" is based on VC investment, is a bit crazy.