4 ms·
That should actually be a red flag about the data. When you see a rapid, precipitous decline in deals but amounts don't change, you have to look at the data. H
by 7Figures2Commas 12y ago
That should actually be a red flag about the data. When you see a rapid, precipitous decline in deals but amounts don't change, you have to look at the data.
How do you get a rapid, precipitous decline in deals without an expected decrease in dollars? Use a data source that a) is liable to miss deals[1] and b) will classify multi-million dollar rounds involving institutional/venture investors as "seed"[2][3].
[1] Per my other comment I work with a startup that raised a public seed round in Q4 that is not listed in Crunchbase.
[2] https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/skydio https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/skydio
[3] https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/north-technologies https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/north-technologies
- neudabei 12y agoCould an article based on the same data not also be titled "Seed rounds increasingly replaced by Series A"? Because while Seed rounds are in decline, Series A is up. Series A also are higher amounts than Seed, so volume in investments is actually going up. Also, it doesn't matter if something is called Series A or Seed. In the end it is about the amount of dollars available to entrepreneurs.