3 ms·

>Raising a bunch of money just isn't a "good" announcement to most of us Speak for yourself. Announcements of adequate funding inspires confidence fly will hav

by PKop 3y ago

>Raising a bunch of money just isn't a "good" announcement to most of us Speak for yourself. Announcements of adequate funding inspires confidence fly will have longevity and resources to scale. Other concerns can be tackled in other blog posts, but nothing about the announcement of funding should inspire less confidence, what sense does that make?

mananaysiempre 3y ago
The issue is not raising money, precisely, the issue is raising money by selling large amounts of controlling equity (as is usually the case for VC funding and IPOs, with a few notable exceptions). The purchasers will expect their money’s worth, and they will (eventually) not hesitate to exercise the control it bought them in order to get that. VCs in particular will expect much more than their money’s worth, or (most of the time) for the company to die trying to earn it, and they won’t hesitate to force the latter in pursuit of the former. This increase in variance is literally their investment model. So if VCs expect their investments to fail most of the time, and I see a company take VC money, I must have very strong reasons if I’m to disbelieve the VCs and expect the company to succeed—and I’m not following a venture investment strategy when I choose a tech supplier. IPOs are somewhat milder in their intrinsic character, but they still usually lead to professional boards of directors and eventually professional execs, where “professional” usually means “no subject matter expertise”. And hardly anybody runs a public company on customer satisfaction nowadays, unfortunately. So when I see controlling equity sold, my outlook changes from “will this go to shit?” to “when this inevitably goes to shit, will it be in the distant enough future that I don’t care or can plan for the loss?” (that being maybe a decade or so for infra, or implausibly long—like the rest of my natural life—for anything involving a community). As usual, the question remains—why does none of this seem to be priced in? I don’t know.

by PKop 3y ago

mananaysiempre 3y ago

The issue is not raising money, precisely, the issue is raising money by selling large amounts of controlling equity (as is usually the case for VC funding and IPOs, with a few notable exceptions). The purchasers will expect their money’s worth, and they will (eventually) not hesitate to exercise the control it bought them in order to get that. VCs in particular will expect much more than their money’s worth, or (most of the time) for the company to die trying to earn it, and they won’t hesitate to force the latter in pursuit of the former. This increase in variance is literally their investment model. So if VCs expect their investments to fail most of the time, and I see a company take VC money, I must have very strong reasons if I’m to disbelieve the VCs and expect the company to succeed—and I’m not following a venture investment strategy when I choose a tech supplier. IPOs are somewhat milder in their intrinsic character, but they still usually lead to professional boards of directors and eventually professional execs, where “professional” usually means “no subject matter expertise”. And hardly anybody runs a public company on customer satisfaction nowadays, unfortunately. So when I see controlling equity sold, my outlook changes from “will this go to shit?” to “when this inevitably goes to shit, will it be in the distant enough future that I don’t care or can plan for the loss?” (that being maybe a decade or so for infra, or implausibly long—like the rest of my natural life—for anything involving a community). As usual, the question remains—why does none of this seem to be priced in? I don’t know.