3 ms·
Sure, happy to. The concern I've had others raise + I agree with is that really great founders don't want to give up a portion of their founding equity to a ven
by cl42 7y ago
Sure, happy to. The concern I've had others raise + I agree with is that really great founders don't want to give up a portion of their founding equity to a venture studio, and "hired guns" won't be as good at this stage. I think if the venture studio founder has a really great track record (e.g., Max Levchin) or access to a lot of capital, then this might be different.
If I were a Series A investor, I might take issue with the initial cap table being so diluted by a venture studio, but I' not a Series A investor.
I'm being very pithy here-- happy to discuss at any point if you'd like.
- staticautomatic 7y agoI think this model is a dream for a solo founder. I'd trade equity for a team instead of cash without hesitation. If you don't have co-founders, you're going to spend most of the money you raise on talent anyway, and you're gonna have to give your talent equity to boot. You might well spend most of your money on talent even if you do have co-founders. I would totally jump at the opportunity to take something through the early stages with a venture studio before raising money. It makes a lot of sense for a lot of reasons-- just probably not to certain kinds of founders or investors.
- wkey 7y agoAlso, kind of depends on the goals of the start up. Not all want a big exit after several series of funding. Others are looking for some scaling, consistent cashflows, etc.
- bjornsing 7y ago> If I were a Series A investor, I might take issue with the initial cap table being so diluted by a venture studio How diluted do you think it would have to be to make the economics work for the venture studio? Where do you think a Series A investor might start taking issue with the dilution?