4 ms·

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.

• 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...:)