Agreed on most points. I’d add that some investors such as a16z or YC add way more value by acting as partners so there is such a thing as more ‘valuable’ capital.
Prominent VCs like to spread this message. I'd take it with a healthy pinch of "remember who's bringing the news". Obviously the people offering less money are trying to sell the idea that less money is somehow more valuable.
Honestly, as a founder...it is. Dumb money is, in effect, pretty useless, whereas 'smart money' comes with additional benefits (provided you and the partner get along, etc.). It isn't guaranteed, but we leaned heavily on our investors for advice and help, especially in those times when we were either at a crossroads or dealing with a situation we had never seen before (b2b enterprise contracts when all our customers were SMB, etc.).
Some of them were also helpful just as the equivalent of 'executive coaches.' Being in the weeds constantly means it's hard to be objective sometimes. Good VCs and good angels are usually experienced and helpful, even if the incentives aren't perfectly aligned. They mostly are though; growth helps both the VC and the founder, so in that sense they're aligned.
But when deciding how big your option pool should be, your incentives are no longer directly aligned. :)
Isn't that the case for most reputable VCs? Marketing your product, identifying synergies in portfolio companies, recruiting opportunities and so forth? Or are a16z & YC in a class of their own in that regard?
nikanj|5 years ago
borski|5 years ago
Some of them were also helpful just as the equivalent of 'executive coaches.' Being in the weeds constantly means it's hard to be objective sometimes. Good VCs and good angels are usually experienced and helpful, even if the incentives aren't perfectly aligned. They mostly are though; growth helps both the VC and the founder, so in that sense they're aligned.
But when deciding how big your option pool should be, your incentives are no longer directly aligned. :)
playeren|5 years ago
borski|5 years ago