5. Funding will be on a monthly basis. If you dont make your numbers, the funding stops
If these are true, unless you're completely poverty-stricken, why whould you need Mark Cuban? Perhaps we're talking large scale investments, but the whole emphasis on "sweat equity" suggests not.
10. I will make no promises that I will be available to offer help. If I want to , I will. If not, I wont.
11. If you do get money, it goes into a bank that I specify, and I have the ability to watch the funds flow and the opportunity to require that I cosign any outflows.
I'm reading this article as "if you can build a successful business in 90 days, I'll give you some cash, and then it's mine....sucker."
From the hip, I'd say it's a helluva PR opportunity, a chance to be in business with Mark Cuban (which some folks might really value), and would allow you to take a bit more of a risk than you otherwise might be able to.
Like YCombinator, I'd imagine selling him a bit of equity would increase your shot at success.
I don't think Ycombinator is as restrictive. In this case the bit of equity seems to involve a lot of control, including monthly reports on financials, and control over hiring and day to day duties (that's what the bit about "no managers, everybody works" implies).
Yes, but Mark Cuban has to offer better valuations, no one but the micro seed funds can reasonably invest 20k for 5%. And if Mark Cuban really wants to micromanage my company, I'd humor him.
Who says he has to offer better valuations? The last line seems pretty relevant - "Im sure I will come up with more rules as I see what comes along, if anything."
He'd have to nail down the rules at some point--you can't sign a contract that isn't written. So, you'd know what you're getting yourself into before getting into it.
I've stopped taking Mark Cuban seriously long ago. The guy got lucky once, and mistakes it for business genius, it is that simple.
Sure, if you have a couple of billion lying around it is easy to tell other people how to solve their problems. But unlike say Warren Buffet I've yet to see him do something that commanded my respect.
I'd challenge Mark Cuban to follow his own plan, pretend he's broke for 60 days and then show that by his own measure he can make it work.
If he succeeds with that he'll definitely have me take him serious again, but I doubt he could and until that happens this is just another "I'm rich therefore I blog" addition to the S/N ratio.
Before Broadcast.com, he started a computer company (MicroSolutions) and ran a very successful hedge fund. After Broadcast.com, he bought the Mavs, started HD Net, formed a charity (Fallen Patriot Fund), actively invests as an angel and cofounded numerous movie production & distribution companies.
Broadcast.com was certainly lucky, but Cuban was already a millionaire long before becoming a billionaire.
And on top of that, when he talks, it makes sense! I mean, it feels like what he is saying is true even though I don't personally have an evidence to support it. The numbers could be anecdotal, who knows. In 6 Billion people, there are probably going to be one or two or 10 people who make every "wrong" decision and still become billionaires.
It's just that Mark Cuban seems to attribute most of his wealth to Mark Cuban and a very small %age of it to luck whereas it most likely is the other way around.
That's true, but I wonder what I would buy for the money that helps me grow the business faster within 90 days. Employing people is excluded, renting office space is useless in that time frame, so the only things I can imagine are buying rights to something or buying actual physical merchandise.
Buying services, i.e outsourcing much of the work, is just a way around the no employees rule. Labour cost is probably the biggest chunk of most growing software startups' cost and that's excluded.
My conclusion is that it needs to a be rights based business. Buy rights to something, add value quickly, and resell the results.
Where did you get the "no employee" rule? If I understood correctly the whole point of this was to create jobs, but that everyone hired needs to work, not organized into layers of management.
To top it, if it is a type of business that can be built in 90 days, I bet before it even gets reviewed, someone else would get it live and for no equity shelled. So much for open source.
The protection there is investment. If your 90 day to profit business needs a $30k investment and your competition can't raise the cash, then you effectively have no competition.
In any case, I think the reason for his posting is just to get people moving. It certainly made me feel pumped up about the idea I got this morning!
4. It must be profitable within 90 days.
5. Funding will be on a monthly basis. If you dont make your numbers, the funding stops
If these are true, unless you're completely poverty-stricken, why whould you need Mark Cuban? Perhaps we're talking large scale investments, but the whole emphasis on "sweat equity" suggests not.