4 ms·

$1m pre-seed without an MVP and first-time founders? I'd be curious to hear if they manage to get a round closed. I also think this may be a US phenomena, due t

$1m pre-seed without an MVP and first-time founders? I'd be curious to hear if they manage to get a round closed. I also think this may be a US phenomena, due to the number of VCs chasing deals. I'm based in Australia, and VCs here still "like" to see traction. the other difference here, as I understand it, is that VCs are taking a smaller equity percentage in seed stage (12%-20%). I have to disagree with your comment re: [what] startup that is hatchig today that will unseat Amazon in the next 30 years"? My take, Apple, Amazon, and Google didn't "unseat" DEC and Sun. They created entirely new categories that didn't exist before. Just because IBM, DEC, and Sun were well placed and "should" have owned these categories doesn't mean the were unseated by them. Some people are still looking for the "next facebook/youtube/etc", but the real opportunity isn't in challenging incumbents, but in creating markets where incumbents don't exist.

AndrewKemendo 5y ago
This is actually a distinction without difference What you describe is HOW Goog etc... unseated the majors. Namely that those other companies couldn't adjust fast enough to absorb those new and fast growing markets. While we could argue whether or not FAAMG is great at executing on attempts to follow emerging markets, I think it's indisputable that they have the resources and nibleness to either absorb via acquisition, take significant positions in (via venture funds) or kill any emerging markets that would actually replace their market positions. I argue that there exist no emerging markets where the top players couldn't collectively come in and replace/kill the new entrants.
- bpodgursky 5y ago
  > I think it's indisputable that they have the resources and nibleness to either absorb via acquisition, take significant positions in (via venture funds) or kill any emerging markets that would actually replace their market positions. If the answer is (1) acquisition, that's a good reason to invest in the companies attempting to disrupt the space -- you're making the incumbents pay for that monopoly status. Even if they aren't disrupted, you're profiting from their anti-competitive behavior.

AndrewKemendo 5y ago

This is actually a distinction without difference What you describe is HOW Goog etc... unseated the majors. Namely that those other companies couldn't adjust fast enough to absorb those new and fast growing markets. While we could argue whether or not FAAMG is great at executing on attempts to follow emerging markets, I think it's indisputable that they have the resources and nibleness to either absorb via acquisition, take significant positions in (via venture funds) or kill any emerging markets that would actually replace their market positions. I argue that there exist no emerging markets where the top players couldn't collectively come in and replace/kill the new entrants.

bpodgursky 5y ago
> I think it's indisputable that they have the resources and nibleness to either absorb via acquisition, take significant positions in (via venture funds) or kill any emerging markets that would actually replace their market positions. If the answer is (1) acquisition, that's a good reason to invest in the companies attempting to disrupt the space -- you're making the incumbents pay for that monopoly status. Even if they aren't disrupted, you're profiting from their anti-competitive behavior.