Hacker News new | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

The point of the article seems to be that spending your own money and raising from friends is bad, and that professional investors are good.

But I didn't fully understand the justification for that, was it in the article and I missed it?

Is it just that:

- friends get annoyed with you if they get diluted,

- and that eventually the money runs out and you'd want to have investors with basically unlimited funds so you can go back to them for future rounds?

Or were there other reasons?






The kicker is towards the end. Be gets saved, but the terms are usurious from the early investors' viewpoint. And there's not much the latter can do about it since their own pockets aren't deep enough. Ergo, better go straight for the deep pocketed Pro, and stay friends with your relatives as a bonus.

His point on Clarity is also spot on:

> A Pro invests as much money, as many times, for as long as required for the situation to attain Clarity. This Clarity allows only two outcomes, Dead or Liquid. When a Pro declines the invitation to invest in a follow-on round, it means they’ve reached Clarity: In the eyes of the Pro who declines to invest, the company is Dead, their initial stake is worthless. Write it off and move on, no tears, no recriminations.


I think it is related to don't invest what you can't afford to lose. Also, similarly to the stock market, investing in only one business is always very risky.



Applications are open for YC Summer 2019

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: