3 ms·

Neurovigil: 2x the seed value of Facebook+Google for ~2% in common stock

9 points by robg 16y ago

ceejayoz 16y ago
That's like saying you sold a painting at 2x what a famous artist sold their first painting for. Hugely misleading, but then it's just a Business Wire paid PR piece. Flagged.
- robg 16y ago
  It's only misleading if it's inaccurate. Sure, the range is big. But go look at their history, team, and results. Then consider they're specifying 2%. Even with the wide range, that's an excellent valuation no matter how you slice it. I had to think "good hackers would find that interesting" if nothing else.
  - ceejayoz 16y ago
    > It's only misleading if it's inaccurate. Bullshit. Misleading statements are accurate statements that deliberately omit or skew vital information. > Even with the wide range, that's an excellent valuation no matter how you slice it. I can't find any information on what the valuation actually is, so I'm not sure where you're getting that it's a good valuation. Depending on what you count as Facebook's "seed round", they could mean $20k. If it was a huge amount, they'd probably have said so - see, for example, Color's $41 million.
    - robg 16y ago
      "Depending on what you count as Facebook's "seed round", they could mean $20k." Look at his team of advisers and the technology. They're not announcing with a press release that one angel (or Grandma) got excited. Pick a floor. The operative number is 2%. Why would they sell that little for that much effort of closing a round?
      - ceejayoz 16y ago
        > Why would they sell that little for that much effort of closing a round? People apply to YC for $20k for their seed rounds. They could send out a press release on a pay-for-PR service like Business Wire claiming (accuately!) that they raised the same as Facebook's seed round, too. For every Google/Facebook out of Google/Facebook-sized seed rounds, there're hordes of non-Googles. > Look at his team of advisers and the technology. I'm trying, and the website is miserable. More misleading, too - they say "CNBC announcement" to gain credibility on all their "news" items, but they paid to have those announcements placed there. The groundbreaking techs and visionaries they claim don't have much available on them outside of these paid PR pieces.
        neurodude 16y ago
        Really? Guillemin and Brenner are Nobel Laureates, Gage is a former president of the Society for Neuroscience. Sejnowski is one of ten living members of the National Academies of Sciences, Medicine and Engineering. Viterbi is a co-founder of Qualcomm... and Wolfram is no dummy either with his PhD in Physics from Caltech at 20. Do you think they paid to win the DFJ Venture Challenge? The UCSD Entrepreneur Challenge? The CONNECT 2010 Most Innovative New Product Award? Do you think they paid to have Low win the Kavli Brain Mind Foundation Award for Most Innovative Research or to get elected TR35 to join the ranks of Brin and Zuckerberg? Do you think they paid Roche and Stanford to use their tech? Do you think they paid Fast Company to elect them as one of the Most Innovative Companies in Health Care? Really???

9 points by robg 16y ago

That's like saying you sold a painting at 2x what a famous artist sold their first painting for. Hugely misleading, but then it's just a Business Wire paid PR piece. Flagged.

robg 16y ago
It's only misleading if it's inaccurate. Sure, the range is big. But go look at their history, team, and results. Then consider they're specifying 2%. Even with the wide range, that's an excellent valuation no matter how you slice it. I had to think "good hackers would find that interesting" if nothing else.
- ceejayoz 16y ago
  > It's only misleading if it's inaccurate. Bullshit. Misleading statements are accurate statements that deliberately omit or skew vital information. > Even with the wide range, that's an excellent valuation no matter how you slice it. I can't find any information on what the valuation actually is, so I'm not sure where you're getting that it's a good valuation. Depending on what you count as Facebook's "seed round", they could mean $20k. If it was a huge amount, they'd probably have said so - see, for example, Color's $41 million.
  - robg 16y ago
    "Depending on what you count as Facebook's "seed round", they could mean $20k." Look at his team of advisers and the technology. They're not announcing with a press release that one angel (or Grandma) got excited. Pick a floor. The operative number is 2%. Why would they sell that little for that much effort of closing a round?
    - ceejayoz 16y ago
      > Why would they sell that little for that much effort of closing a round? People apply to YC for $20k for their seed rounds. They could send out a press release on a pay-for-PR service like Business Wire claiming (accuately!) that they raised the same as Facebook's seed round, too. For every Google/Facebook out of Google/Facebook-sized seed rounds, there're hordes of non-Googles. > Look at his team of advisers and the technology. I'm trying, and the website is miserable. More misleading, too - they say "CNBC announcement" to gain credibility on all their "news" items, but they paid to have those announcements placed there. The groundbreaking techs and visionaries they claim don't have much available on them outside of these paid PR pieces.
      - neurodude 16y ago
        Really? Guillemin and Brenner are Nobel Laureates, Gage is a former president of the Society for Neuroscience. Sejnowski is one of ten living members of the National Academies of Sciences, Medicine and Engineering. Viterbi is a co-founder of Qualcomm... and Wolfram is no dummy either with his PhD in Physics from Caltech at 20. Do you think they paid to win the DFJ Venture Challenge? The UCSD Entrepreneur Challenge? The CONNECT 2010 Most Innovative New Product Award? Do you think they paid to have Low win the Kavli Brain Mind Foundation Award for Most Innovative Research or to get elected TR35 to join the ranks of Brin and Zuckerberg? Do you think they paid Roche and Stanford to use their tech? Do you think they paid Fast Company to elect them as one of the Most Innovative Companies in Health Care? Really???