3 ms·
I haven’t explored what exactly it is that Finix do, so this is just shooting from the hip, but a few possibilities: (1) It wasn’t immediately apparent without
by abalashov 7y ago
I haven’t explored what exactly it is that Finix do, so this is just shooting from the hip, but a few possibilities:
(1) It wasn’t immediately apparent without getting deep into the weeds that they competed with Stripe;
(2) Finix pivoted in a manner that caused them to compete with Stripe more directly;
(3) There was a controversy at the beginning about whether there was a conflict, and someone broke the tie and decided it wasn’t enough of a conflict to worry about, and then someone else at Sequoia gained more influence or proximity, or reconsidered something they were previously sure of, and the balance tipped in the other direction.
- ablekh 7y agoI have no comments on (2) & (3), though they sound a bit too speculative. However, (1) does not make sense to me, since due diligence, pretty much by definition, should have included "getting deep into the weeds" (especially for Series A and, even more so, by a prominent VC firm). BTW, kudos to you for your December 2018 blog post on bootstrapping (the relevant HN discussion does not disappoint either).
- abalashov 7y agoThank you, that’s really kind of you!
- ablekh 7y agoMy pleasure! Feel free to get in touch, whenever you feel lonely professionally or otherwise - will be happy to chat.
- vidarh 7y agoConsider that there are two sides to this: Stripe and Finix. Due dilligence on Finix may well have been solid enough in isolation, but have unveiled things that requires non-public information about Stripe that few people were privy to before someone could connect the dots. Or someone seriously dropped the ball, of course - it happens.