6 ms·

For the curious, pulled their deal history from PitchBook: Secret raised their B last July at a post valuation just over 130M (http://i.imgur.com/jNXw5PZ.png h

For the curious, pulled their deal history from PitchBook: Secret raised their B last July at a post valuation just over 130M (http://i.imgur.com/jNXw5PZ.png http://i.imgur.com/jNXw5PZ.png). They had some major investors backing them up, and then the hype train just... stopped. I remember so many people being so high on it when it launched, with several friends all raving about how fun/addicting it was, then just poof it disappeared from conversation. Hearing that the founders got some cash off the table (article from last summer - http://www.businessinsider.com/secret-founders-pocket-6-million-in-25-million-fundraise-2014-7 http://www.businessinsider.com/secret-founders-pocket-6-mill...). While I always thought that seems like a good thing, I can't help but let my mind wander a bit as I know if I were given a nice chunk of change like that so early, it might be kind of hard to keep focus.

petercooper 12y ago
I remember so many people being so high on it when it launched, with several friends all raving about how fun/addicting it was, then just poof it disappeared from conversation. Pure speculation, but I think trolls/frauds took it over. I say this as a Secret troll myself. I knew the odds of the data (linked to my FB account) becoming public was too high to post real secrets, so I used to just experiment with what got people liking or leaving comments instead. Which was amusing.. until I could tell a lot of people had started doing the same. So I stopped using it.
- pjc50 12y ago
  Did it always have the FB login? Could that have been what killed it?
  - petercooper 12y ago
    I could be wrong, but when I signed up (not early but around the time it first hit the headlines) I thought it was the only way to sign up, or at least the only useful way (since you needed friends and friends-of-friends to see secrets from).
SandersAK 12y ago
Investors (and the team) were looking at the wrong numbers. In apps, it's basically all down to having meteoric growth week over week. It can't be based on spikes as this was. Taking money off the table in a B makes sense for the founders, and I can't blame them for leveraging their situation. Ultimately this falls on the investors for biting on hype, and not having a deeper understanding of the product (and it's potential)or the founders (and their potential). edited for clarity.
- sharkweek 12y ago
  Totally makes sense - but I also completely get why the investors would bite on hype - missing the next billion dollar company is way worse than incorrectly picking a few duds.
  - untog 12y ago
    A $35m dud, though. That's not small fry.
    - sharkweek 12y ago
      True, but there are 27 investors on that table, not too bad spread out
    - jonknee 12y ago
      Well they are returning some capital, so perhaps the damage isn't quite that bad.
  - erichmond 12y ago
    Exactly right, this is a very important message here that should be taken away by future (and current) entrepreneurs.
  - josu 12y ago
    I don't know, at a 130m valuation, a 100x exit was no longer possible, and even a 10x didn't even seem that likely.
look_lookatme 12y ago
Crunchbase says they have 11-25 employees... how did they burn through all of that money? Is it possible they are pivoting or returning money to investors?
- ascorbic 12y ago
  They haven't. The article says they're returning the money.
- krschultz 12y ago
  From the article it doesn't sound like they ran out of money, sounds like the growth has stalled and key talent has left. I bet the money goes back to investors, it doesn't sound like the team is still in place to pivot.
- cwilson 12y ago
  Very likely returning money to investors.
emp_ 12y ago
Noobie question: what happens with the off the table cash?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- nulltype 12y ago
  I'm guessing it remains firmly off the table.
downandout 12y ago
>http://i.imgur.com/jNXw5PZ.png http://i.imgur.com/jNXw5PZ.png Here was the intended use of the $25M: "The funding will be used to implement two new features, a Facebook login and the ability to follow posts on a certain topic". This is what is wrong with Silicon Valley today. An afternoon project for a single developer gets $25M from investors. Please, someone give me just $10M....I've already implemented Facebook login for my apps.
- GCA10 12y ago
  That's hilarious! In Web 1.0, people raised $7 million to buy a domain name. Needing $12.5 million to implement a Facebook login ($25/2 projects) is even more ridiculous.
  - smt88 12y ago
    Box paid 7 figures for the Box.com domain name, so I wouldn't say that raising money to buy domains is dead yet.
    - billmalarky 12y ago
      Box bought box.com roughly 6 years after they launched, they were already wildly successful (as box.net).
      - blumkvist 12y ago
        Has box had a profitable quarter yet?
        burger_moon 12y ago
        It doesn't look like it. https://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE%3ABOX&fstype=ii&ei=IQpCVdnxFozrsQfT0YHwDw https://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE%3ABOX&fstype=ii&ei=IQp...
        anonbanker 12y ago
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

petercooper 12y ago

I remember so many people being so high on it when it launched, with several friends all raving about how fun/addicting it was, then just poof it disappeared from conversation. Pure speculation, but I think trolls/frauds took it over. I say this as a Secret troll myself. I knew the odds of the data (linked to my FB account) becoming public was too high to post real secrets, so I used to just experiment with what got people liking or leaving comments instead. Which was amusing.. until I could tell a lot of people had started doing the same. So I stopped using it.

pjc50 12y ago
Did it always have the FB login? Could that have been what killed it?
- petercooper 12y ago
  I could be wrong, but when I signed up (not early but around the time it first hit the headlines) I thought it was the only way to sign up, or at least the only useful way (since you needed friends and friends-of-friends to see secrets from).

SandersAK 12y ago

Investors (and the team) were looking at the wrong numbers. In apps, it's basically all down to having meteoric growth week over week. It can't be based on spikes as this was. Taking money off the table in a B makes sense for the founders, and I can't blame them for leveraging their situation. Ultimately this falls on the investors for biting on hype, and not having a deeper understanding of the product (and it's potential)or the founders (and their potential). edited for clarity.

sharkweek 12y ago
Totally makes sense - but I also completely get why the investors would bite on hype - missing the next billion dollar company is way worse than incorrectly picking a few duds.
- untog 12y ago
  A $35m dud, though. That's not small fry.
  - sharkweek 12y ago
    True, but there are 27 investors on that table, not too bad spread out
  - jonknee 12y ago
    Well they are returning some capital, so perhaps the damage isn't quite that bad.
- erichmond 12y ago
  Exactly right, this is a very important message here that should be taken away by future (and current) entrepreneurs.
- josu 12y ago
  I don't know, at a 130m valuation, a 100x exit was no longer possible, and even a 10x didn't even seem that likely.

look_lookatme 12y ago

Crunchbase says they have 11-25 employees... how did they burn through all of that money? Is it possible they are pivoting or returning money to investors?

ascorbic 12y ago
They haven't. The article says they're returning the money.
krschultz 12y ago
From the article it doesn't sound like they ran out of money, sounds like the growth has stalled and key talent has left. I bet the money goes back to investors, it doesn't sound like the team is still in place to pivot.
cwilson 12y ago
Very likely returning money to investors.

emp_ 12y ago

Noobie question: what happens with the off the table cash?

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
nulltype 12y ago
I'm guessing it remains firmly off the table.

downandout 12y ago

>http://i.imgur.com/jNXw5PZ.png http://i.imgur.com/jNXw5PZ.png Here was the intended use of the $25M: "The funding will be used to implement two new features, a Facebook login and the ability to follow posts on a certain topic". This is what is wrong with Silicon Valley today. An afternoon project for a single developer gets $25M from investors. Please, someone give me just $10M....I've already implemented Facebook login for my apps.

GCA10 12y ago
That's hilarious! In Web 1.0, people raised $7 million to buy a domain name. Needing $12.5 million to implement a Facebook login ($25/2 projects) is even more ridiculous.
- smt88 12y ago
  Box paid 7 figures for the Box.com domain name, so I wouldn't say that raising money to buy domains is dead yet.
  - billmalarky 12y ago
    Box bought box.com roughly 6 years after they launched, they were already wildly successful (as box.net).
    - blumkvist 12y ago
      Has box had a profitable quarter yet?
      - burger_moon 12y ago
        It doesn't look like it. https://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE%3ABOX&fstype=ii&ei=IQpCVdnxFozrsQfT0YHwDw https://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE%3ABOX&fstype=ii&ei=IQp...
      - anonbanker 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]