5 ms·

Im an MD for Techstars in Austin and happy to answer specific questions on this for anyone about our programs and results. I don't know the details of this spe

by seats 12y ago

Im an MD for Techstars in Austin and happy to answer specific questions on this for anyone about our programs and results. I don't know the details of this specific company, so I won't comment on any of those particulars, but I can for sure comment on the structure of our terms. As I mention in another reply on this thread, the OP appears to have misunderstood the note terms as presented. Currently the 100k note offered is a 3mil-5mil cap note, 20% discount. What causes it to be 5 vs 3 is whether or not the company has had a prior financing event. In other words the cap by default is 3, but it'll float up to 5 if a prior financing is above 3 for a particular company. Those terms are written in stone for all time, but as of this exact moment that's what they are and that's what the were at the time of this blog post. One other thing I'll point out that wasn't covered in the post, likely due to the timing of the event, is our first >= 100 million exit, which happened in the last month. http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdaily/2014/09/23/stratasys-grabcad-deal-gives-new-revenue-source-says-rbc/ http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdaily/2014/09/23/stratasy...

digitailor 12y ago
Is requiring the signing of an LOI over the weekend typical of TechStars?
- seats 12y ago
  Nope. Sam Altman had a great post recently about YC's indictment of timing pressure tactics on accelerator offers. We completely agree with that position and try very hard to not give that impression. Clearly sometimes that pressure is still felt even if it's not intended. One issue that is relevant to us given our fixed class sizes is getting a definitive answer from an offer as quickly as we can so that we know if should move down the list and give an offer to the next team instead. Having 10 offers out and finding out that only 8 want to accept would mean we are giving out 2 offers potentially much later than the others. Purely as a practical timing matter we hope to have a set of offers out around the same time and have everyone accept or dismiss them pretty quickly so we know who the class will be. There was good discussion of this on a prior HN thread when @sama posted that blog piece. If I can dig it up I'll add it here. EDIT: found it - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8285994 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8285994
  - digitailor 12y ago
    The following questions aren't meant to be antagonistic, but your PR has just taken a hit, and the specific claim made in this post about the LOI isn't a small one. Let's clear it up. There was good discussion of this on a prior HN thread when @sama posted that blog piece. If I can dig it up I'll add it here. Is Sam Altman involved with TechStars? If not, why is his name being evoked? It's great that you agree with him, but OP is saying that at least in his case, this point of view was not honored. One issue that is relevant to us given our fixed class sizes is getting a definitive answer from a offer though as quickly as we can so that we know if should move down the list and give an offer to the next team instead. Having 10 offers out and finding out that only 8 want to accept would mean we have are giving out 2 offers potentially much later than the others. Purely as a practical timing matter we hope to give out a set of offers and have everyone accept or dismiss them pretty quickly so we know who the class will be. I understand, but this is simply the universal rationale behind pressure tactics. Your desire for quick resolution is understandable, but the specific claim made in the post needs to be addressed.
    - seats 12y ago
      No worries at all, I don't take it to be antagonistic in any way. I'm hoping to accurately represent how we operate and I'm inviting your questions, so ask away! >> Is Sam Altman involved with TechStars? If not, why is his name being evoked? It's great that you agree with him, but OP is saying that at least in his case, this point of view was not honored. Sam is the president of YC. I'm invoking his name because it was a great post on a common accelerator tactic that we do not employ. The comments in that thread are very relevant. I wasn't invoking Sam so much as I was pulling in the context of that prior discussion on HN. >> I understand, but this is simply the universal rationale behind pressure tactics. Your desire for quick resolution is understandable, but the specific claim made in the post needs to be addressed. Actually not the case. As covered in the thread I referenced the reason that this pressure tactic is typically employed is that an accelerator is trying to force a company to make a decision before the deadline of a program that they view as a competitor, in essence front-running the selection process of another organization. The point I'm making is that while we don't want to use that tactic, we can't afford to give an open ended offer up until the first day of the program because we'd risk having an 8 company cohort. It's less of an issue for YC to take an additional (or lose an additional) half dozen companies between their selection process and day one of the program because a) they don't offer workspace to their companies and don't have to do with those logistics and b) the uncertainty of +/- a few companies doesn't matter as much in a 60+ company batch as it does in a 10-12 company batch.

by seats 12y ago

digitailor 12y ago

Is requiring the signing of an LOI over the weekend typical of TechStars?

seats 12y ago
Nope. Sam Altman had a great post recently about YC's indictment of timing pressure tactics on accelerator offers. We completely agree with that position and try very hard to not give that impression. Clearly sometimes that pressure is still felt even if it's not intended. One issue that is relevant to us given our fixed class sizes is getting a definitive answer from an offer as quickly as we can so that we know if should move down the list and give an offer to the next team instead. Having 10 offers out and finding out that only 8 want to accept would mean we are giving out 2 offers potentially much later than the others. Purely as a practical timing matter we hope to have a set of offers out around the same time and have everyone accept or dismiss them pretty quickly so we know who the class will be. There was good discussion of this on a prior HN thread when @sama posted that blog piece. If I can dig it up I'll add it here. EDIT: found it - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8285994 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8285994
- digitailor 12y ago
  The following questions aren't meant to be antagonistic, but your PR has just taken a hit, and the specific claim made in this post about the LOI isn't a small one. Let's clear it up. There was good discussion of this on a prior HN thread when @sama posted that blog piece. If I can dig it up I'll add it here. Is Sam Altman involved with TechStars? If not, why is his name being evoked? It's great that you agree with him, but OP is saying that at least in his case, this point of view was not honored. One issue that is relevant to us given our fixed class sizes is getting a definitive answer from a offer though as quickly as we can so that we know if should move down the list and give an offer to the next team instead. Having 10 offers out and finding out that only 8 want to accept would mean we have are giving out 2 offers potentially much later than the others. Purely as a practical timing matter we hope to give out a set of offers and have everyone accept or dismiss them pretty quickly so we know who the class will be. I understand, but this is simply the universal rationale behind pressure tactics. Your desire for quick resolution is understandable, but the specific claim made in the post needs to be addressed.
  - seats 12y ago
    No worries at all, I don't take it to be antagonistic in any way. I'm hoping to accurately represent how we operate and I'm inviting your questions, so ask away! >> Is Sam Altman involved with TechStars? If not, why is his name being evoked? It's great that you agree with him, but OP is saying that at least in his case, this point of view was not honored. Sam is the president of YC. I'm invoking his name because it was a great post on a common accelerator tactic that we do not employ. The comments in that thread are very relevant. I wasn't invoking Sam so much as I was pulling in the context of that prior discussion on HN. >> I understand, but this is simply the universal rationale behind pressure tactics. Your desire for quick resolution is understandable, but the specific claim made in the post needs to be addressed. Actually not the case. As covered in the thread I referenced the reason that this pressure tactic is typically employed is that an accelerator is trying to force a company to make a decision before the deadline of a program that they view as a competitor, in essence front-running the selection process of another organization. The point I'm making is that while we don't want to use that tactic, we can't afford to give an open ended offer up until the first day of the program because we'd risk having an 8 company cohort. It's less of an issue for YC to take an additional (or lose an additional) half dozen companies between their selection process and day one of the program because a) they don't offer workspace to their companies and don't have to do with those logistics and b) the uncertainty of +/- a few companies doesn't matter as much in a 60+ company batch as it does in a 10-12 company batch.