3 ms·
I think he means that more money is spent on seed-stage deals than on Series A deals. With seed deals being much smaller than Series A deals that definitely ha
by mkuhn 15y ago
I think he means that more money is spent on seed-stage deals than on Series A deals.
With seed deals being much smaller than Series A deals that definitely has implications (e.g. there probably will not be enough money around to get a Series A for all those Seed funded startups that get to that next stage)
- cperciva 15y agoAh, if the word "number" was supposed to be "total value" that would definitely indicate a problem.
- ed209 15y agoMaybe it's just getting cheaper to build and maybe monetizing is getting easier too, so it's possible that companies are profitable much earlier and don't need a series a?
- spydertennis 15y agoThis is a good hypothesis but I see two problems with it. !) I've almost never seen a case where a company could raise a decent Series A and has chosen not to. Theres a lot of validation and peer pressure towards doing so. 2) Just because you are profitable does not mean you have the money needed to fuel growth. Lots of profitable companies raise Series A. Its actually the preferred way for founders to do it.