4 ms·

VC backed founder here whose company is impacted by this. “Nepotistic trust fund baby” I am not. My family has no money, no connections. I went to Portland Sta

VC backed founder here whose company is impacted by this. “Nepotistic trust fund baby” I am not. My family has no money, no connections. I went to Portland State University. I had no VC connections whatsoever. Our company was originally bootstrapped off of personal savings accumulated by working and living way below our means. No friends or family invested or gave us loans. I’ve had no inheritance and expect none. We did not see a deposit account as a risky investment in any way.

Nifty3929 4y ago
He was targeting VCs, not founders. I’m sorry you’re going through this though.
- seizethecheese 4y ago
  He was implying that depositors should be treated in a specific way because of the assumptions he makes about who they are.
nightmarish 4y ago
[flagged]
nicenewtemp84 4y ago
Did you have more than $250k sitting in SVB? We're you unaware of the $250k FDIC insured limit? Or were you, and didn't act on mitigating this potential problem? Any particular reason?
- seizethecheese 4y ago
  Yes, I was aware. I don’t think there’s a moral imperative to help us, necessarily. I would only ask that tech depositors not be treated differently due to the schadenfreude I see in this thread. Consider companies small enough to have no one whose job it is to do finance. As a founder you’re already working long hours and bank failure is not a risk that is top of mind compared to lack of product market fit.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - wpietri 4y ago
    As far as I can tell, everybody is asking that tech depositors get treated like any other uninsured depositor. That being fairly, under the long-established rules. As a founder, I am sorry that VCs apparently don't help with treasury management. That strikes me as something that should be a clear part of their value prop.
- AlchemistCamp 4y ago
  How would you act to mitigate it? Most banks don’t really like working with startups and sometimes freeze their money over AML controls that don’t play nicely with investor checks. If there’s a way to purchase insurance against this risk, I’ve never heard of it, and it’s probably too expensive for early stage startups.

Nifty3929 4y ago

He was targeting VCs, not founders. I’m sorry you’re going through this though.

seizethecheese 4y ago
He was implying that depositors should be treated in a specific way because of the assumptions he makes about who they are.

nightmarish 4y ago

[flagged]

nicenewtemp84 4y ago

Did you have more than $250k sitting in SVB? We're you unaware of the $250k FDIC insured limit? Or were you, and didn't act on mitigating this potential problem? Any particular reason?

seizethecheese 4y ago
Yes, I was aware. I don’t think there’s a moral imperative to help us, necessarily. I would only ask that tech depositors not be treated differently due to the schadenfreude I see in this thread. Consider companies small enough to have no one whose job it is to do finance. As a founder you’re already working long hours and bank failure is not a risk that is top of mind compared to lack of product market fit.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- wpietri 4y ago
  As far as I can tell, everybody is asking that tech depositors get treated like any other uninsured depositor. That being fairly, under the long-established rules. As a founder, I am sorry that VCs apparently don't help with treasury management. That strikes me as something that should be a clear part of their value prop.
AlchemistCamp 4y ago
How would you act to mitigate it? Most banks don’t really like working with startups and sometimes freeze their money over AML controls that don’t play nicely with investor checks. If there’s a way to purchase insurance against this risk, I’ve never heard of it, and it’s probably too expensive for early stage startups.