Thing is, VC is a risky business in itself. There definitely is the need to be able to absorb costs and build at scale, but I wonder if there were ways to build smaller versions of the same digital products so things could start generating money from an earlier point before VC is necessary and or eliminating the need for VC? Often inventors will trade equity for the idea and when it doesn't perform to the ability that they agreed upon, the idea is absorbed into the VC's "assets" and shelved.
I have gathered this small understanding through some business learnings but I am definitely willing to learn more about it, especially if my ideas are off-base or wrong.
Is there a better way?
@Arbitrage! @Cynic since yall have big money experience and aren't in this thread
Had to check what the trend is about, I can give just two viewpoints on this. One from being in Asia and one leading the development of a project even though I'm not in VC.
1) Being in Asia has made me realize a few things. You need to know your stuff inside and out! I mean you have to be the smartest one in the room. That comes with an unbelievable work ethic to produce results. It builds social credit with people! Even if you fail people remember the work ethic and knowledge before they remember the failure. Also for the most, people care about if you can deliver on the products and services that's basically it! Now even though that's Asia it's going to be the same in North America, but with a slight twist as there are a lot of biases to overcome back home that doesn't exist in Asia. I have never heard the odd black jokes in Asia, ever time dealing with white people one will pop up. But all in it's about what can be delivered.
2) So done a few projects with Caribbeans governments and those projects got a lot of attention as most of the team were brothers and sisters from North America and the Caribbean and mostly East Indian as the technical team. To be honest even those didn't turn out well because of timing but we picked up a lot of exposure even though the timing was off. But the team all had MBA and master degrees and a good track record believe one even had a Ph.D.. Have to look back and make sure don't quote me on that. So back to the point, there was just one member who was white on that team and he held a low-level position. It goes back to the point if you can deliver, it is the main driver. As the team has accomplished things before.
Now let me answer the last part of your question, investors are fickle honestly. Yes, they will trade equity for your ideas but only if other people are interested in the idea. It comes back to point one again and marketability. I have seen pure shyt ideas. I mean ideas that are flawed from head to toe raise capital all because of hype! I'm wondering how did that raise a few million dollars when anyone can see there are flaws all over. It's all because of one name got attached to the project!
I hope that helps!
Last edited: