7 ms·

They did take VC funding though? By pulling themselves up by their bootstraps (and a meager $1.3 million in funding) they were able to start a company! That's

They did take VC funding though? By pulling themselves up by their bootstraps (and a meager $1.3 million in funding) they were able to start a company! That's not an insignificant sum of money, I see that they didn't take further rounds, but still this feels like a nice marketing piece with a bad headline.

vmception 6y ago
The article says “hamster wheel”, not that they didn’t take it. The headline here adds ambiguity that wasnt written
- imacoder 6y ago
  If there is a valuation, then there was funding or there will be funding. Looks like funding came from YC, so yeah, they were funded.
  - jeff18 6y ago
    Not necessarily! Shares trade all the time without funding the company. The valuation depends on what people pay for those shares.
    - imacoder 6y ago
      If it has shares, it's funded. Doesn't matter if they are traded later. Also, HN is an echo chamber.
- dang 6y ago
  OK, we've disambiguated that in the title above. (Submitted title was "Zapier reached a $5B valuation without VC funding".)
falcor84 6y ago
It is really unclear, but I suppose maybe they only took money from angel investors?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- lawrencevillain 6y ago
  It looks like they were part of the S12 cohort for YC, and that is definitely VC money.
capableweb 6y ago
Very unlike HN to upvote a comment that has reacted only to the headline on HN, not even the articles own headline, even less the body of the article. Maybe because everyone reading the comments is doing it the same way?
- Kaze404 6y ago
  What's wrong with criticizing a headline that presents factually untrue information?
  - capableweb 6y ago
    It's a editorialized headline that only appears on HN. The submission itself (it's content) doesn't actually say anything like the title is (was? Seems title changed)
  - dang 6y ago
    It tends to take the thread to a shallow place, when there are usually much deeper and more interesting aspects to discuss.
- pc86 6y ago
  How is that "unlike HN?" I pretty regularly see comments that either make it clear the author didn't read the article (e.g. arguing against points not made, or "adding" additional information that's in the second paragraph) or explicitly say they're only responding to title or some tangential point.
vladislav 6y ago
It's strictly speaking correct in that the $5B valuation was established purely on the secondary market and only from sales of shares of investors (not common holders), which doesn't give the company any VC funding. Also $1.3M in seed funding is a rounding error to get to $5B.
- notyourday 6y ago
  This smells like a sophisticated investor pump and dump: sell a small number of shares for a stupid amount to use the new valuation as the marker. I would trust this number far less than a number one would arrive at a new VC round
  - vladislav 6y ago
    Unlikely due to the buyers also being sophisticated. "Sequoia and Steadfast Financial bought shares at a $5 billion valuation from some of Zapier’s original investors."

vmception 6y ago

The article says “hamster wheel”, not that they didn’t take it. The headline here adds ambiguity that wasnt written

imacoder 6y ago
If there is a valuation, then there was funding or there will be funding. Looks like funding came from YC, so yeah, they were funded.
- jeff18 6y ago
  Not necessarily! Shares trade all the time without funding the company. The valuation depends on what people pay for those shares.
  - imacoder 6y ago
    If it has shares, it's funded. Doesn't matter if they are traded later. Also, HN is an echo chamber.
dang 6y ago
OK, we've disambiguated that in the title above. (Submitted title was "Zapier reached a $5B valuation without VC funding".)

falcor84 6y ago

It is really unclear, but I suppose maybe they only took money from angel investors?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
lawrencevillain 6y ago
It looks like they were part of the S12 cohort for YC, and that is definitely VC money.

capableweb 6y ago

Very unlike HN to upvote a comment that has reacted only to the headline on HN, not even the articles own headline, even less the body of the article. Maybe because everyone reading the comments is doing it the same way?

Kaze404 6y ago
What's wrong with criticizing a headline that presents factually untrue information?
- capableweb 6y ago
  It's a editorialized headline that only appears on HN. The submission itself (it's content) doesn't actually say anything like the title is (was? Seems title changed)
- dang 6y ago
  It tends to take the thread to a shallow place, when there are usually much deeper and more interesting aspects to discuss.
pc86 6y ago
How is that "unlike HN?" I pretty regularly see comments that either make it clear the author didn't read the article (e.g. arguing against points not made, or "adding" additional information that's in the second paragraph) or explicitly say they're only responding to title or some tangential point.

vladislav 6y ago

It's strictly speaking correct in that the $5B valuation was established purely on the secondary market and only from sales of shares of investors (not common holders), which doesn't give the company any VC funding. Also $1.3M in seed funding is a rounding error to get to $5B.

notyourday 6y ago
This smells like a sophisticated investor pump and dump: sell a small number of shares for a stupid amount to use the new valuation as the marker. I would trust this number far less than a number one would arrive at a new VC round
- vladislav 6y ago
  Unlikely due to the buyers also being sophisticated. "Sequoia and Steadfast Financial bought shares at a $5 billion valuation from some of Zapier’s original investors."