4 ms·

>how it becomes the next $100M household name Unfortunately this is too low for a VC/YC. The min valuation they are looking for is around $1B

_akhe 2y ago
I meant $100M in annual revenues :) Your point is taken though, I think a lot of VCs would scoff at our present-day numbers despite our growth and outlook. It's very much still a small business, yet by far the most impressive thing either of us have ever done and the hardest we've ever worked. Been at it since July of last year pretty much non-stop.
- ganeshkrishnan 2y ago
  $100M from only July last year is far far impressive. We have been on this for 3 years and barely reaching $1M revenue (Although I wasted two years of my life applying for YC/VC/Pitching)
dang 2y ago
That's not so. At the last YC talk I attended, founders of $100M startups were cited as successes (anything else would be pretty weird, no?) That's incredibly successful, even though startup investing is a power-law game.
- ganeshkrishnan 2y ago
  Here is the YC rejection letter for my startup > "... we felt this was unlikely to be a unicorn, even though it might have a solid chance of reaching 10-100M in valuation."
  - dang 2y ago
    If that's an accurate quote then I owe you an apology and I'm sorry!
    - ganeshkrishnan 2y ago
      That's a verbatim quote copied from the rejection email. You don't owe an apology because you are not the one rejecting it. However keep in mind that what your beliefs are, they are not the same held by colleagues/friends/families.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
- zamfi 2y ago
  That’s totally true, though there’s a difference between “founders of $100M startups” that already have that valuation, and working on a company in a market where $100M is the max you could expect. If you aim for $10B and hit $100M that’s great, you aimed for the Sun and landed on the Moon! But if the max you can hit is $100M, then everything needs to go right to reach the Moon, and the Sun is fully out of reach — and it will be much harder to raise money.
  - VS1999 2y ago
    [flagged]

_akhe 2y ago

I meant $100M in annual revenues :) Your point is taken though, I think a lot of VCs would scoff at our present-day numbers despite our growth and outlook. It's very much still a small business, yet by far the most impressive thing either of us have ever done and the hardest we've ever worked. Been at it since July of last year pretty much non-stop.

ganeshkrishnan 2y ago
$100M from only July last year is far far impressive. We have been on this for 3 years and barely reaching $1M revenue (Although I wasted two years of my life applying for YC/VC/Pitching)

dang 2y ago

That's not so. At the last YC talk I attended, founders of $100M startups were cited as successes (anything else would be pretty weird, no?) That's incredibly successful, even though startup investing is a power-law game.

ganeshkrishnan 2y ago
Here is the YC rejection letter for my startup > "... we felt this was unlikely to be a unicorn, even though it might have a solid chance of reaching 10-100M in valuation."
- dang 2y ago
  If that's an accurate quote then I owe you an apology and I'm sorry!
  - ganeshkrishnan 2y ago
    That's a verbatim quote copied from the rejection email. You don't owe an apology because you are not the one rejecting it. However keep in mind that what your beliefs are, they are not the same held by colleagues/friends/families.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
zamfi 2y ago
That’s totally true, though there’s a difference between “founders of $100M startups” that already have that valuation, and working on a company in a market where $100M is the max you could expect. If you aim for $10B and hit $100M that’s great, you aimed for the Sun and landed on the Moon! But if the max you can hit is $100M, then everything needs to go right to reach the Moon, and the Sun is fully out of reach — and it will be much harder to raise money.
- VS1999 2y ago
  [flagged]