3 ms·

I don’t know who needs to hear this but raising a ton of money is not success. Also interesting from their Series C press release from earlier this year: > Wi

by tyre 2mo ago

I don’t know who needs to hear this but raising a ton of money is not success. Also interesting from their Series C press release from earlier this year: > With this large Series C, we have entirely de-risked capital going forward, which in turn assures our independence.

fuzztester 2mo ago
Good points. >I don’t know who needs to hear this Plenty of people on this forum need to hear it. Because they think otherwise. >but raising a ton of money is not success. Yes. It's not even an accurate predictor of future success. >With this large Series C, we have entirely de-risked capital going forward, which in turn assures our independence. Independence from whom? If they mean from everyone, they left out two important categories: The Series C givers. The other big C. Customers.
- panick21_ 2mo ago
  They mean is that they are much harder to acquire. Their goal is to become an independent public company.
  - colesantiago 2mo ago
    > "independent public company" But they are not independent though, they will be owned by Wall Street should they go public. Instead they remain in the private markets for a long time and sell secondary shares, just like what Stripe is doing. I hope they never go public for the reason that Wall Street would own them.
    - benji-york 2mo ago
      > But they are not independent though, they will be owned by Wall Street should they go public. That depends on how much equity they issue as public stock. (And stock classes and voting rights, but you get the idea.)
    - sunshowers 2mo ago
      I mean, really no one is fully independent — we are all dependent on each other for the necessities of life. But in this context "independent" means "not a subsidiary of another company".
  - windexh8er 2mo ago
    Taking money means they literally are losing control with every dollar. Do you really think that the terms on a $400M+ round don't include influence?
sneak 2mo ago
It’s success compared to the other possibility: not raising money and going out of business. We still cheer when a rocket separates from the first stage and ignites the next. Things going as planned during a risky and challenging endeavor is still a good thing.
- jononor 2mo ago
  And it is not success compared to another possibility, earning enough money to not need further fundraising. Of course some businesses are more capital intensive and have longer time-to-money timelines due to factors outside the control of the company, and in that case fundraising is an essential tool for a long time.
  - fragmede 2mo ago
    Yeah they're doing a hardware play, which means it's really capital intensive. That kind of cash means they can afford to do a larger production run, which gets them better economies of scale, which means more profit per unit sold. investors are being given private access to see that the demand is there to justify further investment.
Aurornis 2mo ago
> I don’t know who needs to hear this but raising a ton of money is not success. You don't raise this much money this fast without having some success to show the investors. Oxide raising this much money is a big accomplishment.
- huijzer 2mo ago
  > You don't raise this much money this fast without having some success to show the investors. I’m pretty sure the dotcom bubble had many counterexamples
  - jeffrallen 2mo ago
    pets.com has entered the chat.
    - fuzztester 2mo ago
      Webvan has left the chat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webvan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webvan >Bankruptcy >The company lost over $800 million and shut down in June 2001, filing for bankruptcy and laying off 2,000 employees. >Reasons for failure >CNET named Webvan one of the largest dot-com flops in history.
  - thomascountz 2mo ago
    If you follow Oxide (perhaps just by reading their Blog[1] and RFDs[2]), I think you'd find a more rigorous engineering and business culture than most case studies you're referring to from the 90s/00s. Of course it's not impossible that Oxide is getting themselves in trouble, but there is more evidence supporting a successful case, in my opinion. [1]: https://oxide.computer/blog https://oxide.computer/blog [2]: https://rfd.shared.oxide.computer/ https://rfd.shared.oxide.computer/
    - deleted 2mo ago
      [deleted]
    - JeremyNT 2mo ago
deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
gib444 2mo ago
It's success, just not what you consider success.

by tyre 2mo ago

fuzztester 2mo ago

Good points. >I don’t know who needs to hear this Plenty of people on this forum need to hear it. Because they think otherwise. >but raising a ton of money is not success. Yes. It's not even an accurate predictor of future success. >With this large Series C, we have entirely de-risked capital going forward, which in turn assures our independence. Independence from whom? If they mean from everyone, they left out two important categories: The Series C givers. The other big C. Customers.

panick21_ 2mo ago
They mean is that they are much harder to acquire. Their goal is to become an independent public company.
- colesantiago 2mo ago
  > "independent public company" But they are not independent though, they will be owned by Wall Street should they go public. Instead they remain in the private markets for a long time and sell secondary shares, just like what Stripe is doing. I hope they never go public for the reason that Wall Street would own them.
  - benji-york 2mo ago
    > But they are not independent though, they will be owned by Wall Street should they go public. That depends on how much equity they issue as public stock. (And stock classes and voting rights, but you get the idea.)
  - sunshowers 2mo ago
    I mean, really no one is fully independent — we are all dependent on each other for the necessities of life. But in this context "independent" means "not a subsidiary of another company".
- windexh8er 2mo ago
  Taking money means they literally are losing control with every dollar. Do you really think that the terms on a $400M+ round don't include influence?

sneak 2mo ago

It’s success compared to the other possibility: not raising money and going out of business. We still cheer when a rocket separates from the first stage and ignites the next. Things going as planned during a risky and challenging endeavor is still a good thing.

jononor 2mo ago
And it is not success compared to another possibility, earning enough money to not need further fundraising. Of course some businesses are more capital intensive and have longer time-to-money timelines due to factors outside the control of the company, and in that case fundraising is an essential tool for a long time.
- fragmede 2mo ago
  Yeah they're doing a hardware play, which means it's really capital intensive. That kind of cash means they can afford to do a larger production run, which gets them better economies of scale, which means more profit per unit sold. investors are being given private access to see that the demand is there to justify further investment.

Aurornis 2mo ago

> I don’t know who needs to hear this but raising a ton of money is not success. You don't raise this much money this fast without having some success to show the investors. Oxide raising this much money is a big accomplishment.

huijzer 2mo ago
> You don't raise this much money this fast without having some success to show the investors. I’m pretty sure the dotcom bubble had many counterexamples
- jeffrallen 2mo ago
  pets.com has entered the chat.
  - fuzztester 2mo ago
    Webvan has left the chat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webvan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webvan >Bankruptcy >The company lost over $800 million and shut down in June 2001, filing for bankruptcy and laying off 2,000 employees. >Reasons for failure >CNET named Webvan one of the largest dot-com flops in history.
- thomascountz 2mo ago
  If you follow Oxide (perhaps just by reading their Blog[1] and RFDs[2]), I think you'd find a more rigorous engineering and business culture than most case studies you're referring to from the 90s/00s. Of course it's not impossible that Oxide is getting themselves in trouble, but there is more evidence supporting a successful case, in my opinion. [1]: https://oxide.computer/blog https://oxide.computer/blog [2]: https://rfd.shared.oxide.computer/ https://rfd.shared.oxide.computer/
  - deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]
  - JeremyNT 2mo ago

deleted 2mo ago

[deleted]

gib444 2mo ago

It's success, just not what you consider success.