

Neurovigil: 2x the seed value of Facebook+Google for ~2% in common stock - robg
http://classic.cnbc.com/id/42866528

======
ceejayoz
That's like saying you sold a painting at 2x what a famous artist sold their
first painting for. Hugely misleading, but then it's just a Business Wire paid
PR piece. Flagged.

~~~
robg
It's only misleading if it's inaccurate. Sure, the range is big. But go look
at their history, team, and results. Then consider they're specifying 2%. Even
with the wide range, that's an excellent valuation no matter how you slice it.
I had to think "good hackers would find that interesting" if nothing else.

~~~
ceejayoz
> It's only misleading if it's inaccurate.

Bullshit. Misleading statements are accurate statements that deliberately omit
or skew vital information.

> Even with the wide range, that's an excellent valuation no matter how you
> slice it.

I can't find any information on what the valuation actually is, so I'm not
sure where you're getting that it's a good valuation. Depending on what you
count as Facebook's "seed round", they could mean $20k. If it was a huge
amount, they'd probably have said so - see, for example, Color's $41 million.

~~~
robg
"Depending on what you count as Facebook's "seed round", they could mean
$20k."

Look at his team of advisers and the technology. They're not announcing with a
press release that one angel (or Grandma) got excited.

Pick a floor. The operative number is 2%. Why would they sell that little for
that much effort of closing a round?

~~~
ceejayoz
> Why would they sell that little for that much effort of closing a round?

People apply to YC for $20k for their seed rounds. They could send out a press
release on a pay-for-PR service like Business Wire claiming (accuately!) that
they raised the same as Facebook's seed round, too.

For every Google/Facebook out of Google/Facebook-sized seed rounds, there're
hordes of non-Googles.

> Look at his team of advisers and the technology.

I'm trying, and the website is miserable. More misleading, too - they say
"CNBC announcement" to gain credibility on all their "news" items, but they
paid to have those announcements placed there. The groundbreaking techs and
visionaries they claim don't have much available on them outside of these paid
PR pieces.

~~~
neurodude
Really? Guillemin and Brenner are Nobel Laureates, Gage is a former president
of the Society for Neuroscience. Sejnowski is one of ten living members of the
National Academies of Sciences, Medicine and Engineering. Viterbi is a co-
founder of Qualcomm... and Wolfram is no dummy either with his PhD in Physics
from Caltech at 20. Do you think they paid to win the DFJ Venture Challenge?
The UCSD Entrepreneur Challenge? The CONNECT 2010 Most Innovative New Product
Award? Do you think they paid to have Low win the Kavli Brain Mind Foundation
Award for Most Innovative Research or to get elected TR35 to join the ranks of
Brin and Zuckerberg? Do you think they paid Roche and Stanford to use their
tech? Do you think they paid Fast Company to elect them as one of the Most
Innovative Companies in Health Care? Really???

