hobbyjogger

13 ms·

61.
by hobbyjogger 11y ago
> If you have Board control you will be able to issue dividends Most VCs insist on a protective provision that requires their approval to issue dividends to the founders/employees (i.e., common stock). So yeah--focus on either build
62.
by hobbyjogger 11y ago
I worked on a cattle ranch one summer in high school in West Texas and it was easily a 15 - 20 minute drive to get to the mailbox on the highway (the ranch was 11 miles from end to end, all rough dirt roads and gates every quarter mile or s
63.
by hobbyjogger 11y ago
Ha, maybe these guys need to team up with http://snailmailmyemail.org/ so that the recipients can't reliably identify and block their LWAAS.
64.
by hobbyjogger 11y ago
> At what point does JaaS stop scaling? Perhaps this one stop on the way to fully digitized contracts? Think about the difference between an "AI" capable of checking flight data and identifying delays greater than (X) minutes v
65.
by hobbyjogger 11y ago
Yeah - calling it "justice"-as-a-service seems a little ambitious. More like "(semi-)automated emails/letters asking for refunds"-as-a-service. These emails/letters are, for the most part, only going to be as e
66.
by hobbyjogger 11y ago
They might not like it (especially if there's a large effective discount), but that's not why. If you raise a next round the SAFE never gets paid off - it converts into equity in the round. None of the equity investors' mon
67.
by hobbyjogger 11y ago
A SAFE is basically a convertible note developed by YC[0] that is better for founders (at least mechanically) than most traditional convertible notes. As with other notes, the investor basically gives you money now in exchange for some equi
68.
by hobbyjogger 11y ago
The agreement has a blank for the most meaningful term: the valuation cap. If you raise a round below that cap (or just above it) the SAFE ends up being a good deal. But if you raise the next round at a valuation significantly higher than t
69.
by hobbyjogger 11y ago
I didn't state anything. That's a direct quote by the guy who runs what is, by leaps and bounds, the most advanced project applying AI to legal analysis. They're doing some incredible (and incredibly interesting) things, bu
70.
by hobbyjogger 11y ago
Meh, not so fast. Here's the Stanford CS professor who runs the Stanford Center for Computers and Law[1]: "One technical problem with Computational Law, familiar to many individual with legal training, is due to the open texture o
71.
by hobbyjogger 11y ago
Sort of. An example mentioned in the paper is etoys.com, presumably the first major online toy retailer. According to this theory, etoys.com would have only captured some small % of the online market for online toys before they went under.
72.
by hobbyjogger 11y ago
Might be worth giving it another shot. Doze in Android Marshmallow drastically improved my standby battery life[0]. Doze handles wake locks much like iOS--not quite as well but it's night and day from my previous Android phones. Here&#
73.
by hobbyjogger 11y ago
Just thought I'd point out that the example given doesn't tell us anything about liquidation preferences (though of course you can assume they would be involved, since we're talking VCs here, but they don't matter). The
74.
by hobbyjogger 11y ago
In the vast majority of deals, collecting your liquidation preference is a sort of soft landing - the VCs just get their money back (without interest). It's much better for everyone if there's a big exit (either a high priced acqu
75.
by hobbyjogger 11y ago
Yes, whoever VC deal lawyer is needs to work on more late stage deals. An IPO is not a liquidation event - it's just another funding round. There are no liquidation proceeds for the preference to apply to. Here's Brad Feld[1]: Jas
76.
by hobbyjogger 11y ago
Liquidation preferences are wiped out in an IPO. What's more relevant are "ratchets" which were mentioned in the article.
77.
by hobbyjogger 11y ago
If the employees have stock, they'll be entitled to see the amended and restated certificate of incorporation, which would show liquidation preferences, etc. If they only have options, they're not entitled to anything, though they
78.
by hobbyjogger 11y ago
Great analysis (and interesting idea regarding large funds recently raised by accelerators, etc.). However, if the implication is that this situation is even somewhat common--your analysis doesn't match the data. If you look at Fenwick
79.
by hobbyjogger 11y ago
The prices on Page 10 (I actually see similar but slightly different numbers, the document may have been updated) are weighted-average exercise prices for all outstanding options. Since many of those options would have been issued years a
80.
by hobbyjogger 11y ago
1. It doesn't tell you at all that you "must" accept a plea bargain. It very well may tell you that you should bluff and proceed to trial so the prosecutor will drop your case in order to preserve his conviction rate. 2. Agai
81.
by hobbyjogger 11y ago
Sure, but again "conviction rate" is too coarse of a metric to make any meaningful conclusions about guilt/innocence or why the rate is so high. Japan, for example, has a 99% conviction rate but Ramseyer attributes much of
82.
by hobbyjogger 11y ago
Caveat: this study is for federal courts (which tend to see more serious crimes) but the data on acquittal rates is nowhere near what you are suggesting. http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article...
83.
by hobbyjogger 11y ago
Eh, it's really not such a big deal. Maintaining 7% in a round for 20% total only lets YC buy 1.4%. As sama said elsewhere, the difference between 20% and 18.6% (with an equivalent reduction in their $ invested) shouldn't change m
84.
by hobbyjogger 11y ago
It depends on how the YC pro rata rights are documented. It's entirely possible that their pro rata right will be completely independent of any later pro rata right for major investors (i.e., the major Series A investors might get thei
85.
by hobbyjogger 11y ago
Your dollar value should actually increase (assuming we're not talking down rounds). You still have the same amount of shares, but an "up round" means that each share is now theoretically worth more than it was when you bough
86.
by hobbyjogger 11y ago
Good discussion of this little logic puzzle here: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/76491/multiple-choi...
87.
by hobbyjogger 11y ago
Yep. So can corporations (at least in DE). Check out Delaware Gen. Corporate Law § 122: "Every corporation created under this chapter shall have power to: ... (15) Pay pensions and establish and carry out pension, _profit sharing_, sto
88.
by hobbyjogger 11y ago
Here's what the project's executive director has to say on the matter[1]: "One technical problem with Computational Law, familiar to many individual with legal training, is due to the open texture of laws. Consider a municipa
89.
by hobbyjogger 11y ago
Fosbury flop, mediocre example. High jump was a relatively new sport (~a century vs. humans swimming for 20,000 years) and his technique was only made possible by the then-recent addition of a very soft and raised landing pad. The Fosbury F
90.
by hobbyjogger 11y ago
In an odd way, your constitutional amendment (b) would outlaw marriage altogether. When you have an inalienable right to something, you can't bargain that right away through contract.[1] An inalienable right to define who is family wou

More ›