
Micro VCs Are Coming - zbravo
http://mattermark.com/the-micro-vcs-are-coming/
======
jgh
How is this different from VCs who focus on seed stage? There are a number of
such funds out there and some have been very very successful, I don't
understand this "Micro VCs are coming" thing if the definition is really just
"VCs who focus on Seed stage" because they've been here for a while.

~~~
dheera
Perhaps it's because 99% of VCs I've talked to who claim (on their website, in
person, or otherwise) to focus on the seed stage or early stage, change their
mind when you actually go pitch to them. Like asking about users, traction,
and so on. If I had those already, I would _by definition_ not be early stage.

True early stage investors focus on technology, team, demos, prototypes, and
so on. Probably team more than anything else.

~~~
woah
Your definition of "true early stage investors" seems to favor those who would
shut out anyone without connections or Ivy-league pedigrees. Maybe investors
have found that traction is more important than the founder's biography
blurbs. Seems like it's totally reasonable for a company to be in an early
stage and have actual users. For those without a golden ticket, this may be
the only way to attract investment, since they can't rely on the investor's
definition of "team" as a criteria.

~~~
dheera
Sure, traction _is_ an excellent indicator of a company's potential to
succeed. I don't dispute that. And I respect you if you are in investor who is
looking for companies with traction. However, in this case though, please
don't call yourself "early stage". This wastes everyones' time. You get people
pitching to you that don't meet your baseline criteria. Those people waste
time with you instead of other truly early-stage investors who are actually
likely to open their wallets and throw a few bucks at a couple founders so
they can quit their day job and get working on their idea.

------
isla-de-encanta
startups in pre-seed are like poor underfed people. micro VCs are like nice
people who invite you for Saturday lunch, bath and change of clothes. They did
not change your life but on Sunday you might look good enough to raise from a
bigger VC.

------
atom-morgan
I was hoping the whole "accredited investor" requirement was going away.

~~~
InvisibleCities
That would be an absolute unmitigated disaster. VCs with ample resources
capable of doing thorough due diligence still manage to get hoodwinked by
frauds and con artists. I shudder to think about how many more UBeams will
come out of the woodwork to scam my grandmother out of her retirement savings
should those requirements be lifted.

~~~
robhunter
You don't think people should have the freedom to invest their money in
whatever they want to? Or is that a privilege that only wealthy people should
enjoy?

~~~
InvisibleCities
The reality is that it is impossible for everyone to be an expert in
everything. At some point, certain fields, medicine and finance for example,
become so complex that it is impossible for a lay-person to make an informed
decision. Historically, when lay-people are given the freedom to "use their
money however they want" within these fields, hucksters and frauds have quite
successfully conned them because it is impossible for a lay-person to tell the
difference between a legitimate opportunity and a scam; they don't have the
expertise, experience, and even the time to perform the due-diligence needed
to make an informed decision. While these regulations are certainly a blunt
instrument, and they do prevent a very small segment of the lay-population who
could make an informed decision from doing so, the alternative is far worse.

~~~
jsprogrammer
Taken as whole, this explanation doesn't make complete sense.

States routinely run opportunities/scams that target the "lay population". Why
don't these regulations address actual harm, rather than hypothetical harm?

~~~
sanderjd
I think they did address actual harm. It is only hypothetical now because it
has already been addressed. States do routinely "run opportunities/scams" that
also likely do actual harm (assuming you're referring to lotteries here). They
probably shouldn't do that. But that they do doesn't suggest that they have
just given up all their justification to prevent other harm through
regulation.

