I wouldn't say unfundable, but perhaps they are facing different challenges. I've got a few friends who raised money for a good-cause startup, but the problem is they got that money as a grant from a charitable foundation - terrible idea! The founders now have enough cash to pay themselves and to hire people, but because the money won't run dry for a few years, the market forces aren't kicking them in the ars. The result? The team's pretty smart, but they've been in "stealth" for as long as I've known them because there is absolutely no motivator for them to release and iterate.
The article says that young valley millionaires see investing into startups as a game, as a badge of honor. If that is so, I hope more of them could re-invest the proceeds into smarter causes. Maybe if there was enough of competition between them, as to whose educational startup is the coolest, then founders would be reluctant to eat taco-bell and work 80 hrs/week.
As per the rejections you got from the VCs, sorry to hear; the first batch tho had very legitimate concerns.
Comments
Companies that solve real problems are presently unfundable based on my experience.
http://www.thinkcomputer.com/corporate/whitepapers/heldhosta...
Take a look at the Appendix to see how VCs react to serious work.
I wouldn't say unfundable, but perhaps they are facing different challenges. I've got a few friends who raised money for a good-cause startup, but the problem is they got that money as a grant from a charitable foundation - terrible idea! The founders now have enough cash to pay themselves and to hire people, but because the money won't run dry for a few years, the market forces aren't kicking them in the ars. The result? The team's pretty smart, but they've been in "stealth" for as long as I've known them because there is absolutely no motivator for them to release and iterate.
The article says that young valley millionaires see investing into startups as a game, as a badge of honor. If that is so, I hope more of them could re-invest the proceeds into smarter causes. Maybe if there was enough of competition between them, as to whose educational startup is the coolest, then founders would be reluctant to eat taco-bell and work 80 hrs/week.
As per the rejections you got from the VCs, sorry to hear; the first batch tho had very legitimate concerns.
Weren't the VCs right in this case, though? The regulatory issues were exactly the problem.