5 ms·

they raised $355M this year and like $600M last year https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/bolt-5/company_financials https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/

they raised $355M this year and like $600M last year https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/bolt-5/company_financials https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/bolt-5/company_finan... how can a company burn money that quickly so they end up with only 12-18 months of runway?

fdgsdfogijq 4y ago
No idea. Confirmed the layoff number is 33% as of today. Which is pretty aggressive, they must be hemorrhaging money.
phphphphp 4y ago
very broad strokes: money is raised to be spent. each round gets you to the next, or you reach some measure of sustainability before the money runs out — layoffs like this should be expected, regardless of the amount raised, if there’s a shift in conditions that indicate raising again in 18 months isn’t going to be easy. You can burn any amount of money if you want to.
- version_five 4y ago
  Yes, regardless of Bolt's specific circumstances, this is on point. Nobody is giving startups money to sit on it. Especially for the really big raises, a big part of the motivation is that the company has made a case for how the large amount of money is going to be deployed very quickly (with the goal of generating returns). You don't take $900M of VC funding and stretch it out over 10 years, that's not what they gave it to you for. Whether it's actually possible to usefully deploy all that money is another matter. Generally it's very hard. I only have an up-close perspective on one such large raise (that ultimately failed) but imo the reason they got the money was that they made themselves a credible way to spend so much so quickly.
  - dev_tty01 4y ago
    >Nobody is giving startups money to sit on it. Depends on the economic environment. We are headed for a difficult cycle. Downsizing and doing a raise to at least partially "sit on" might be the best strategy at this moment. Money flow can go from huge to nothing faster than one might imagine.
- scarface74 4y ago
  Neither the VCs nor the founders care about “sustainability” or profitability. They care about exiting and not being left holding the bag.
  - SmellTheGlove 4y ago
    In the grand scheme of it, I haven't worked with that many, but every founder I have had the chance to work with has cared about sustainability. This is way more speculative, but I believe that sustainability goes out the window in favor of quarterly wins when the (co)founder steps back from their role and they transition to a non-(co)founder CEO and such. I guess we could interpret that as the cofounder cares about sustainability for as long as it takes to hand off the bag.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      Once the founder takes VC funding, it no longer matters what the founder wants even if that is true.
matwood 4y ago
I shaved a bit off our AWS bill and my CFO at the time asked if it was worth my time. I asked him if he knew how you get a huge AWS bill with no idea how to fix? A little bit at a time. People get lazy because things seem good and let questionable hires and other expenses slide by because why not, there's plenty of money.
- ushakov 4y ago
  see, that's why we don't use AWS
  - matwood 4y ago
    Toosh!
    - TheDong 4y ago
      ... I have to ask, is this some word I don't know, or is this a misspelling of 'touché'?
      - veb 4y ago
        Is a real word apparently: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/toosh https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/toosh
      - matwood 4y ago
        It's a joke from a, IMO, really funny show. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bQMjmVmkF4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bQMjmVmkF4
- SkyPuncher 4y ago
  > I asked him if he knew how you get a huge AWS bill with no idea how to fix? A little bit at a time But that doesn't answer his question. Was it worth it? You get tech debt a little at a time, but it can be hugely valuable to leverage it for growth.
Thaxll 4y ago
Engineers are expensive.
- Patrol8394 4y ago
  California is expensive
  - aaronbrethorst 4y ago
    Cities with terrible home building policies are expensive.
    - tekknik 4y ago
      Let’s not forget the high taxes!

fdgsdfogijq 4y ago

No idea. Confirmed the layoff number is 33% as of today. Which is pretty aggressive, they must be hemorrhaging money.

phphphphp 4y ago

very broad strokes: money is raised to be spent. each round gets you to the next, or you reach some measure of sustainability before the money runs out — layoffs like this should be expected, regardless of the amount raised, if there’s a shift in conditions that indicate raising again in 18 months isn’t going to be easy. You can burn any amount of money if you want to.

version_five 4y ago
Yes, regardless of Bolt's specific circumstances, this is on point. Nobody is giving startups money to sit on it. Especially for the really big raises, a big part of the motivation is that the company has made a case for how the large amount of money is going to be deployed very quickly (with the goal of generating returns). You don't take $900M of VC funding and stretch it out over 10 years, that's not what they gave it to you for. Whether it's actually possible to usefully deploy all that money is another matter. Generally it's very hard. I only have an up-close perspective on one such large raise (that ultimately failed) but imo the reason they got the money was that they made themselves a credible way to spend so much so quickly.
- dev_tty01 4y ago
  >Nobody is giving startups money to sit on it. Depends on the economic environment. We are headed for a difficult cycle. Downsizing and doing a raise to at least partially "sit on" might be the best strategy at this moment. Money flow can go from huge to nothing faster than one might imagine.
scarface74 4y ago
Neither the VCs nor the founders care about “sustainability” or profitability. They care about exiting and not being left holding the bag.
- SmellTheGlove 4y ago
  In the grand scheme of it, I haven't worked with that many, but every founder I have had the chance to work with has cared about sustainability. This is way more speculative, but I believe that sustainability goes out the window in favor of quarterly wins when the (co)founder steps back from their role and they transition to a non-(co)founder CEO and such. I guess we could interpret that as the cofounder cares about sustainability for as long as it takes to hand off the bag.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    Once the founder takes VC funding, it no longer matters what the founder wants even if that is true.

matwood 4y ago

I shaved a bit off our AWS bill and my CFO at the time asked if it was worth my time. I asked him if he knew how you get a huge AWS bill with no idea how to fix? A little bit at a time. People get lazy because things seem good and let questionable hires and other expenses slide by because why not, there's plenty of money.

ushakov 4y ago
see, that's why we don't use AWS
- matwood 4y ago
  Toosh!
  - TheDong 4y ago
    ... I have to ask, is this some word I don't know, or is this a misspelling of 'touché'?
    - veb 4y ago
      Is a real word apparently: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/toosh https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/toosh
    - matwood 4y ago
      It's a joke from a, IMO, really funny show. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bQMjmVmkF4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bQMjmVmkF4
SkyPuncher 4y ago
> I asked him if he knew how you get a huge AWS bill with no idea how to fix? A little bit at a time But that doesn't answer his question. Was it worth it? You get tech debt a little at a time, but it can be hugely valuable to leverage it for growth.

Thaxll 4y ago

Engineers are expensive.

Patrol8394 4y ago
California is expensive
- aaronbrethorst 4y ago
  Cities with terrible home building policies are expensive.
  - tekknik 4y ago
    Let’s not forget the high taxes!