4 ms·

This is more or less a guaranteed way to never get accepted into a program like this ever again however. I don't see any serious upside to a company who might w

by SEJeff 12y ago

This is more or less a guaranteed way to never get accepted into a program like this ever again however. I don't see any serious upside to a company who might want to do this.

tptacek 12y ago
If you're making your numbers, people will invest. If you're not, it often doesn't matter if they invest or not.
digitailor 12y ago
After hearing this story, I would be more likely to invest in this startup. The LOI pressure over the weekend was unacceptable. The fact that the founders held firm and did not fall for it is an indicator of future success for them. This was responsible, wise, business behavior. If the startup continues to operate like this, their chances for success are high, market allowing.
- billions 12y ago
  How to get investor attention: 1. Write about a controversial topic relevant to Hacker News 2. Show off traction 3. Say you are not looking for $$$ (Bonus: get more customers)
  - techgen 12y ago
    Lol, you are probably right. I bet these get money thrown at them from investors that don't respect accelerators (there are lots of them). They have over 40k users (probably more now) and charge 20$ per month. Close to 1m a month in revenue. They don't need investment or an accelerator at this point. I think it was a brilliant self marketing tactic. And then they have the balls to post it here, lol... Love it. I think we are all witnessing a genius marketing stunt that is going to be the topic of discussion in the future.
rokhayakebe 12y ago
I upvoted your comment because I disagree and want more people to understand this position of fear and caution is exactly what leads to horrible decisions. What's more, taking the opposite stand is good for the little guy. In the first part of his book "Soul" Aristotle devotes the first book to refuting previous famous writers on the subject. Rousseau did the same in the first book (I believe) of Social Contract. Socrates did the same in ... well ... everywhere. For something more recent, Apple was anti PC, I am sure Linux was anti-Closed-OS, Snapchat is anti Facebook and all these made it public, which in turn did nothing short of helping them.
- SEJeff 12y ago
  I also upvoted yours :) I think that their choices were sound business. However, you don't voice things that make other "industry players" look bad. This is ultimately a pretty small world and people in our industry tend to move around. It just takes one guy from that VC to leave for another investor they might want in the future to blackball them. That is what I was trying to say.
  - sumedh 12y ago
    I think there might some VCs who would actually respect these guys an invest just because they made this story public.
taybin 12y ago
It sounds like they don't really care about that. And good for them.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

by SEJeff 12y ago

This is more or less a guaranteed way to never get accepted into a program like this ever again however. I don't see any serious upside to a company who might want to do this.

tptacek 12y ago

If you're making your numbers, people will invest. If you're not, it often doesn't matter if they invest or not.

digitailor 12y ago

After hearing this story, I would be more likely to invest in this startup. The LOI pressure over the weekend was unacceptable. The fact that the founders held firm and did not fall for it is an indicator of future success for them. This was responsible, wise, business behavior. If the startup continues to operate like this, their chances for success are high, market allowing.

billions 12y ago
How to get investor attention: 1. Write about a controversial topic relevant to Hacker News 2. Show off traction 3. Say you are not looking for $$$ (Bonus: get more customers)
- techgen 12y ago
  Lol, you are probably right. I bet these get money thrown at them from investors that don't respect accelerators (there are lots of them). They have over 40k users (probably more now) and charge 20$ per month. Close to 1m a month in revenue. They don't need investment or an accelerator at this point. I think it was a brilliant self marketing tactic. And then they have the balls to post it here, lol... Love it. I think we are all witnessing a genius marketing stunt that is going to be the topic of discussion in the future.

rokhayakebe 12y ago

I upvoted your comment because I disagree and want more people to understand this position of fear and caution is exactly what leads to horrible decisions. What's more, taking the opposite stand is good for the little guy. In the first part of his book "Soul" Aristotle devotes the first book to refuting previous famous writers on the subject. Rousseau did the same in the first book (I believe) of Social Contract. Socrates did the same in ... well ... everywhere. For something more recent, Apple was anti PC, I am sure Linux was anti-Closed-OS, Snapchat is anti Facebook and all these made it public, which in turn did nothing short of helping them.

SEJeff 12y ago
I also upvoted yours :) I think that their choices were sound business. However, you don't voice things that make other "industry players" look bad. This is ultimately a pretty small world and people in our industry tend to move around. It just takes one guy from that VC to leave for another investor they might want in the future to blackball them. That is what I was trying to say.
- sumedh 12y ago
  I think there might some VCs who would actually respect these guys an invest just because they made this story public.

taybin 12y ago

It sounds like they don't really care about that. And good for them.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]