2 ms·

I though I most likely agree that a seed round at $100M is a bit ridiculous, I'm curious about a few things. Are people really raising a "seed" at $100M with o

I though I most likely agree that a seed round at $100M is a bit ridiculous, I'm curious about a few things. Are people really raising a "seed" at $100M with only $1M investment? I would assume these sorts of companies were in the space industry or something similar where they don't get anywhere without hundreds of millions and a seed would look more like $25M What sorts of companies are raising at these sorts of valuations, and what stage are they really at? Fred suggests that a seed means they don't yet have PMF, but perhaps that isn't correct in the cases he's seeing.

dzonga 5y ago
I think, he meant a VC fund will be worth 100m. and then it will fund 100 startups, with 1 mil each. VC's will be looking at aggregates, to present to their LP's.
- robocat 5y ago
  The article is talking about investments of $1M per company to get 1% ownership at a 100M valuation, and why the returns probably suck if you limit yourself to angel investment only. The single biggest flaw with the analysis, is that it ignores that you must be a seed investor to be at the table to participate in subsequent series A,B,C funding rounds of the most successful businesses. The following is from the article. Assumptions: Fund Size $100,000,000 Number Of Investments 100 Post-Money Value $100,000,000 Investment Amount $1,000,000 Ownership 1.00% Average Dilution from Seed to Exit 66.67% Top-Performing Investment Outcome $10,000,000,000 Power Law Number 0.75 Given those assumptions, a $100mm seed fund that makes all of its investments at $100mm post-money will barely return the fund. And that number is gross, before fees and carry. Total Value At Exit $133,333,323 Fund Return 1.33