Nivi · March 16th, 2010
This is one of our most popular tweets ever. You never know which tweet will be popular.
The tweet isn’t exactly true but it’s close enough for 140 characters. Exceptions and corrections welcome in the comments.
This is one of our most popular tweets ever. You never know which tweet will be popular.
The tweet isn’t exactly true but it’s close enough for 140 characters. Exceptions and corrections welcome in the comments.
As Pascal said, “I would have made it shorter, but I didn’t have enough time.”
I think this is as concise as it gets. The other paradox of funding is you often can’t get it until you no longer need it.
Hmm, I wonder. I am a one person business. It is profitable (not exactly setting the world on fire, but paying the bills, living comfortably [though admittedly I am a minimalist with no family to support]) and slowly accumulating a growing cash base while being able to re-invest some profits as well. I think I have a deep understanding of my business and can explain the disruptive trajectory in detail, and that the current progress in my business reflects this thesis in action. The business has its diehard fans/members.
There is a political element to my long-term business vision, and generally to my identity as a whole. So I wonder: would investors feel more comfortable with me if I was not a full blown kook? Put another way, while investors may wish to see me get further on my own, would the requirements to get further on my own be lower if I was not a full blown kook?
Also, I think being a solo entrepreneur (i.e. no co-founders) is a turn-off to many. I see it as a huge advantage — i.e. look how much of the pie can be shared! But perhaps if there were more co-founders, investors would demand less “proof,” — particularly if the co-founders were visible and were not full blown kooks.
So maybe the amount of “proof” an investor requires is contingent upon other factors, and that the threshold can be lower or higher given certain conditions.