4 ms·
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
by 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 agoDown-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.