4 ms·

One thing wonders me - why angel investors bet on the fact they occasionally find the right team for an idea which already exists and proven in their heads? I c

by viach 8y ago

One thing wonders me - why angel investors bet on the fact they occasionally find the right team for an idea which already exists and proven in their heads? I can understand when you don't really know where to put your money and spend all day deleting emails with weird pitch decks pdfs, but if you _do_ know what's the problem which needs to be solved? Is there a need for "outsourcing founders team" thing?

TekMol 8y ago
The problem is that you need one guy in the company that pushes the vision forward. Constantly. For years. Somebody who is intrinsically motivated to bring that thing to life. In my experience, you do not find such a person for hire. To an outsider startup ideas usually look like barking up the wrong tree. Good luck finding a talented, motivated CEO willing to enthusiastically bark up the wrong tree for years.
- viach 8y ago
  A motivated and experienced product owner with shares in company, won't this make a deal? Again, isn't it easier to find an experienced person who likes your idea, than find a person who both has the same idea and experienced and motivated enough?
spyhi 8y ago
If you think about it, it kind of makes sense. OP is in a situation where he haas much more money than time, however due to his position in the world, he can see many opportunities--generally this is true for professional investors, too. For a normal person, pursuing one means there is an opportunity cost, but for an investor it makes sense to buy a slice of the action in an opportunity they believe in. Being a proper investor (mentoring, introductions) also takes time, so that's another disincentive from OP's perspective to being a founder vs a funder. Also, investors have things thing about inventing the future by funding it. Generally, individually or as a group, they'll decide something is going to be the next big thing and start cultivating deals in that area. One you can see happening in real time is space: Randomly in the last couple of years, investors have put together huge funds around space ventures, even though serious commercialization still seems to be a ways off. Even OP referenced it in his blog post. As for why a founder vs a compensated product owner? Because a founder presumably has spent a lot of time thinking about the problem and is intrinsically motivated to solve it--so much so that they've done all the legwork to assemble a team and gather enough data to be investment-worthy. If as an investor you're wrong about the opportunity in this space, it's a whole lot of risk and cost and time you don't have to take on yourself. By advertising a pot of money, instead of searching for the right person, the hope is that the right person and team will eventually come to your door.

by viach 8y ago

TekMol 8y ago

The problem is that you need one guy in the company that pushes the vision forward. Constantly. For years. Somebody who is intrinsically motivated to bring that thing to life. In my experience, you do not find such a person for hire. To an outsider startup ideas usually look like barking up the wrong tree. Good luck finding a talented, motivated CEO willing to enthusiastically bark up the wrong tree for years.

viach 8y ago
A motivated and experienced product owner with shares in company, won't this make a deal? Again, isn't it easier to find an experienced person who likes your idea, than find a person who both has the same idea and experienced and motivated enough?

spyhi 8y ago

If you think about it, it kind of makes sense. OP is in a situation where he haas much more money than time, however due to his position in the world, he can see many opportunities--generally this is true for professional investors, too. For a normal person, pursuing one means there is an opportunity cost, but for an investor it makes sense to buy a slice of the action in an opportunity they believe in. Being a proper investor (mentoring, introductions) also takes time, so that's another disincentive from OP's perspective to being a founder vs a funder. Also, investors have things thing about inventing the future by funding it. Generally, individually or as a group, they'll decide something is going to be the next big thing and start cultivating deals in that area. One you can see happening in real time is space: Randomly in the last couple of years, investors have put together huge funds around space ventures, even though serious commercialization still seems to be a ways off. Even OP referenced it in his blog post. As for why a founder vs a compensated product owner? Because a founder presumably has spent a lot of time thinking about the problem and is intrinsically motivated to solve it--so much so that they've done all the legwork to assemble a team and gather enough data to be investment-worthy. If as an investor you're wrong about the opportunity in this space, it's a whole lot of risk and cost and time you don't have to take on yourself. By advertising a pot of money, instead of searching for the right person, the hope is that the right person and team will eventually come to your door.