4 ms·

Obviously you could write anything on a Twitter feed. People embellish the hell out of their LinkedIn profiles, just like they might a resume. I don't believe

by shingen 15y ago

Obviously you could write anything on a Twitter feed. People embellish the hell out of their LinkedIn profiles, just like they might a resume. I don't believe Twitter qualifies as a valuable form of due diligence for an investor. Should Zuckerberg be worried about what Wall Street thinks of his Twitter account? One post in three years probably implies he just isn't with the times. https://twitter.com/#!/finkd https://twitter.com/#!/finkd It's not looking good for Zuck. You know what's a lot more reliable than me tweeting about Whitney Houston's death? The product I create and show you. Brass tacks. The rest is a superficial sideshow.

fredsters_s 15y ago
Are you equating a cold-calling investment prospect with Mark Zuckerberg? I don't believe Twitter qualifies as a valuable form of due diligence for an investor No disrespect, but you're belief is incorrect. Anything and everything about you online is used when doing DD. Of course, if your product is fucking awesome, then the fact that your Twitter stream is empty is irrelevant. But if your product is fucking awesome, you aren't cold-calling VCs. VCs are cold-calling you.
- tatsuke95 15y ago
  >"Anything and everything about you online is used when doing DD." Having what, for all intents and purposes, is an employer judge - or worse yet misjudge- me based on my interests, or the articles I read is precisely the reason I'm moving away the merger of my online/offline lives. I recently put my money where my mouth is and deleted my Facebook account. >"However, at the seed stage you're investing in people" This always sounds like horseshit to me. Can some one point to some good examples where this model has been truly successful? Why aren't VCs actively recruiting college campuses, then? It seems like you're missing out on a huge chunk of great candidates if you're always selecting "people" from a small subset who are seeking funding for their (possibly terrible) technology startup.
  - fredsters_s 15y ago
    To see some good examples where this model has been truly successful, see every successful VC fund and accelerator (especially YC), ever. Also, I totally agree re prospective employers, from an employee's POV. But don't make the mistake of conflating Investors with Employers. The two are very different beasts, looking for very different attributes.
    - tatsuke95 15y ago
      >"To see some good examples where this model has been truly successful, see every successful VC fund and accelerator (especially YC), ever" I don't know everything about these incubators, but are you telling me that these guys and gals apply and get into the programs without an idea for a startup? That isn't how I thought it worked. I think that's how people like to think or claim it works. But I'm not sure it's the reality. And, if I tried hard, I could probably come up with an example or two where the opposite happened: VCs banked on the talent behind a company with a not-so-good idea, and it "failed".
- shingen 15y ago
  I'm using the Zuckerberg reference to point out what a joke the notion of Twitter as a due diligence source is. Wall Street has to perform MASSIVE due diligence on Facebook, likely the single greatest due diligence run in world history - and they're sure as hell not concerned about Zuck's Twitter account in that process. I don't see anything that indicates my belief is incorrect. Quite the opposite, I'm living proof that I'm right. My Twitter account doesn't have a single post on it. I deleted the 20 or 30 tweets it used to have dating back several years. My Facebook account is completely private. My LinkedIn account lists only my current project. I raised the seed round for my latest venture, from a world class investor (a top 50 investor in the US tech market), with a demonstrated product, and absolutely nothing else. My product was solid, but not "fucking awesome" - it was good enough to prove I could execute the rest of the plan. It took about two months to build, and a net cost basis of maybe $50 if you proportion out the real infrastructure expense. The bottom line: I sold the investor on what I was going to do, how I was going to do it, and I had a good enough product to demonstrate credibility.
  - fredsters_s 15y ago
    Down-vote opinions you disagree with? Don't misrepresent my statements in an attempt to exaggerate their absurdity. Obviously, Wall Street !== Angels, ergo IPO !== seed stage. There's no doubt there are edge cases. But the point I was trying to make was that investors are interested, above all, in people. The fact that you managed to raise a seed round in the absence of traction or a polished product is evidence of this very point. I'd love to hear from your investor as to why he invested in you. I'm willing to bet you are the single biggest reason.

by shingen 15y ago

fredsters_s 15y ago

Are you equating a cold-calling investment prospect with Mark Zuckerberg? I don't believe Twitter qualifies as a valuable form of due diligence for an investor No disrespect, but you're belief is incorrect. Anything and everything about you online is used when doing DD. Of course, if your product is fucking awesome, then the fact that your Twitter stream is empty is irrelevant. But if your product is fucking awesome, you aren't cold-calling VCs. VCs are cold-calling you.

tatsuke95 15y ago
>"Anything and everything about you online is used when doing DD." Having what, for all intents and purposes, is an employer judge - or worse yet misjudge- me based on my interests, or the articles I read is precisely the reason I'm moving away the merger of my online/offline lives. I recently put my money where my mouth is and deleted my Facebook account. >"However, at the seed stage you're investing in people" This always sounds like horseshit to me. Can some one point to some good examples where this model has been truly successful? Why aren't VCs actively recruiting college campuses, then? It seems like you're missing out on a huge chunk of great candidates if you're always selecting "people" from a small subset who are seeking funding for their (possibly terrible) technology startup.
- fredsters_s 15y ago
  To see some good examples where this model has been truly successful, see every successful VC fund and accelerator (especially YC), ever. Also, I totally agree re prospective employers, from an employee's POV. But don't make the mistake of conflating Investors with Employers. The two are very different beasts, looking for very different attributes.
  - tatsuke95 15y ago
    >"To see some good examples where this model has been truly successful, see every successful VC fund and accelerator (especially YC), ever" I don't know everything about these incubators, but are you telling me that these guys and gals apply and get into the programs without an idea for a startup? That isn't how I thought it worked. I think that's how people like to think or claim it works. But I'm not sure it's the reality. And, if I tried hard, I could probably come up with an example or two where the opposite happened: VCs banked on the talent behind a company with a not-so-good idea, and it "failed".
shingen 15y ago
I'm using the Zuckerberg reference to point out what a joke the notion of Twitter as a due diligence source is. Wall Street has to perform MASSIVE due diligence on Facebook, likely the single greatest due diligence run in world history - and they're sure as hell not concerned about Zuck's Twitter account in that process. I don't see anything that indicates my belief is incorrect. Quite the opposite, I'm living proof that I'm right. My Twitter account doesn't have a single post on it. I deleted the 20 or 30 tweets it used to have dating back several years. My Facebook account is completely private. My LinkedIn account lists only my current project. I raised the seed round for my latest venture, from a world class investor (a top 50 investor in the US tech market), with a demonstrated product, and absolutely nothing else. My product was solid, but not "fucking awesome" - it was good enough to prove I could execute the rest of the plan. It took about two months to build, and a net cost basis of maybe $50 if you proportion out the real infrastructure expense. The bottom line: I sold the investor on what I was going to do, how I was going to do it, and I had a good enough product to demonstrate credibility.
- fredsters_s 15y ago
  Down-vote opinions you disagree with? Don't misrepresent my statements in an attempt to exaggerate their absurdity. Obviously, Wall Street !== Angels, ergo IPO !== seed stage. There's no doubt there are edge cases. But the point I was trying to make was that investors are interested, above all, in people. The fact that you managed to raise a seed round in the absence of traction or a polished product is evidence of this very point. I'd love to hear from your investor as to why he invested in you. I'm willing to bet you are the single biggest reason.