3 ms·
As I understand things, this was a change from last year, specifically because some of the teams rejected the terms that they were given in the past.
by wheels 17y ago
As I understand things, this was a change from last year, specifically because some of the teams rejected the terms that they were given in the past.
- madmotive 17y agoSounds like they need to make their terms public in the same way YC does: http://ycombinator.com/seriesaa.html http://ycombinator.com/seriesaa.html
- wheels 17y agoThose aren't the YC terms. The YC terms are given to teams after they're invited for an interview.
- plinkplonk 17y ago"some of the teams rejected the terms that they were given in the past." If some startup founders rejected 50,000 Euros and great advisers, for a 5-10% share , there is something broken in the model. At least from the pov of the (vetted, chosen) people doing the rejecting if 50,000 Euros is not providing enough value they ae well within their rights to reject it. Fixing the broken parts may pay off more than making arbitrary rules that people have to accept whoever puts up 50k Euros. This is like saying people have to accept jobs because "we put so much effort into interviewing you". Such rules are probably unenforceable anyway and make the proposers look like idiots.
- c3o 17y agoWhy would you say "whoever puts up 50k Euros"? Seedcamp Investments LLP does.
- plinkplonk 17y ago"whoever puts up 50k Euros" covers Seedcamp LLP.The key concept is putting pressure on people to accept. My (simple) point is that people should be able to sign or not as they please, without psychlogical pressure to do so. If people back off, figure out why and fix it vs "changing the rules this year" or whatever)