3 ms·

Are you involved in cannabis tech? I found a Forbes article about a VC firm that raised a fund from investors who wanted to remain anonymous: https://www.forbe

by hluska 8y ago

Are you involved in cannabis tech? I found a Forbes article about a VC firm that raised a fund from investors who wanted to remain anonymous: https://www.forbes.com/sites/debraborchardt/2016/08/22/marijuanas-investors-prefer-to-keep-it-a-secret/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/debraborchardt/2016/08/22/marij... Otherwise, talk to a lawyer, pay attention to how the deal is structured, and be careful with any type of diligence they want to do before they write a cheque. Realistically, criminal activity is possible, but unless you're involved in very specific types of tech or have a certain kind of business model they could exploit for money laundering purposes, I think it's low risk. Even the money laundering bit seems unlikely unless you have a very specific type of background. Bringing some random tech founder into a money laundering scheme sounds like a pretty good way to punch your ticket to a federal prison. Rather, I'd say it's more possible that the investors have invested in a competitor. In those case it could be very bad (they want to learn your secrets), or it could be fine. They might want to hedge their bets without sending a negative signal about other portfolio companies.

aquins 8y ago
Thanks for sharing, but even in this case, the investors were worried about releasing their names - the company did however know who was wiring them the money. In our case, it looks like we won't know (see other comment regarding syndicates). I don't like the idea of using money that I don't know where it came from, and I don't know how to protect myself against bad surprises in many years down the road ...
- hluska 8y ago
  Whenever you close an investment there is a very real risk that everything will go to hell. In this case, honestly, I am less concerned that they want to stay anonymous and more concerned with this: "[I]t seems like we'd keep at least the same, perhaps even majority, of board seats, as the investor believes that the management should stay in control to keep them properly incentivized." It would make sense for an investor to want you to retain a majority of equity to stay motivated, but board control seems like a strange incentive. Keeping relative control of your board (at this stage) isn't uncommon, but that's an odd way to communicate it. Maybe it's nothing, but between a generous valuation and handing you board control to keep you incentivized, I would be rather worried if you had to raise a down round. Damn, now you've got me feeling paranoid...:)

by hluska 8y ago

aquins 8y ago

Thanks for sharing, but even in this case, the investors were worried about releasing their names - the company did however know who was wiring them the money. In our case, it looks like we won't know (see other comment regarding syndicates). I don't like the idea of using money that I don't know where it came from, and I don't know how to protect myself against bad surprises in many years down the road ...

hluska 8y ago
Whenever you close an investment there is a very real risk that everything will go to hell. In this case, honestly, I am less concerned that they want to stay anonymous and more concerned with this: "[I]t seems like we'd keep at least the same, perhaps even majority, of board seats, as the investor believes that the management should stay in control to keep them properly incentivized." It would make sense for an investor to want you to retain a majority of equity to stay motivated, but board control seems like a strange incentive. Keeping relative control of your board (at this stage) isn't uncommon, but that's an odd way to communicate it. Maybe it's nothing, but between a generous valuation and handing you board control to keep you incentivized, I would be rather worried if you had to raise a down round. Damn, now you've got me feeling paranoid...:)