3 ms·

Your comment isn't helpful if you don't provide a value. I'm not interested enough in the politics of the American Republican party to gauge whether you think i

by Jabbles 16y ago

Your comment isn't helpful if you don't provide a value. I'm not interested enough in the politics of the American Republican party to gauge whether you think it is < or > 1%. As for one strategy making more sense, you cannot simply assert that when you have no numbers to back that up. You cannot hedge a single bet by definition. Clearly the hedging of risk takes place in the other investments of the companies Bain Capital, Sequoia, and Silicon Valley Bank. I have no inside knowledge of what Color is doing, nor do I think it's particularly likely that they'll succeed in becoming a multi-billion-dollar industry. But it doesn't have to be likely, when your ROI is potentially so high.

jallmann 16y ago
> As for one strategy making more sense, you cannot simply assert that when you have no numbers to back that up. I can't give numbers, because they are simply impossible to quantify at this stage. (Note I said 2016, which is about the same time it'd take for Color to ramp up to its full potential.) My point is, Color is a long shot. > nor do I think it's particularly likely that they'll succeed in becoming a multi-billion-dollar industry. But it doesn't have to be likely, when your ROI is potentially so high. "potential" is the weasel word here. You can't possibly begin to anticipate ROI numbers for a particular investment at the stage Color is in. And you most certainly don't pump $40 million in a company if you think it's unlikely they'll succeed in becoming a multi-billion dollar industry. This is all just a bit WTF-ish.
- rmrm 16y ago
  in the bubble years of the late 90's there was a startup that received $500 million in seed funding. I only bring them up because even with all the discussion around color I haven't seen them referenced (there might be others like them as well, I just don't remember any). In similarity to color, their initial valuation and largess of funding was due to the history of their founders, and the perceived "hotness" of their target market. Still around, but have never managed to do much of anything. http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=zhne&ql=1 http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=zhne&ql=1

by Jabbles 16y ago

jallmann 16y ago

> As for one strategy making more sense, you cannot simply assert that when you have no numbers to back that up. I can't give numbers, because they are simply impossible to quantify at this stage. (Note I said 2016, which is about the same time it'd take for Color to ramp up to its full potential.) My point is, Color is a long shot. > nor do I think it's particularly likely that they'll succeed in becoming a multi-billion-dollar industry. But it doesn't have to be likely, when your ROI is potentially so high. "potential" is the weasel word here. You can't possibly begin to anticipate ROI numbers for a particular investment at the stage Color is in. And you most certainly don't pump $40 million in a company if you think it's unlikely they'll succeed in becoming a multi-billion dollar industry. This is all just a bit WTF-ish.

rmrm 16y ago
in the bubble years of the late 90's there was a startup that received $500 million in seed funding. I only bring them up because even with all the discussion around color I haven't seen them referenced (there might be others like them as well, I just don't remember any). In similarity to color, their initial valuation and largess of funding was due to the history of their founders, and the perceived "hotness" of their target market. Still around, but have never managed to do much of anything. http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=zhne&ql=1 http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=zhne&ql=1