> And, of course, the big gaping hole in that argument is that if you can effectively raise money to participate in DEMO, then you don't need DEMO's help with r

> And, of course, the big gaping hole in that argument is that if you can effectively raise money to participate in DEMO, then you don't need DEMO's help with raising money. That sounds a bit like a reflexive argument to my comment. Conferences aside and all other things being equal-- if you were an investor, would you rather put your money in a team you know can already raise $20,000 if they need it versus someone with unknown skills/means in that area? Surely it's not a negative. You know the old adage that most investors are happy to invest in companies that don't really need their money. But of course, just because a company can raise $20k doesn't mean they don't need "real" money-- which is surely why they got the initial funds so they could demo and raise more.