I wonder if the increase of size of seed round corresponds to startups waiting to seek funding until they are more mature.
The second seed round, makes me even more suspicious of this: are we simply renaming A and B rounds to seed 1 and seed 2 rounds? The increased size of these rounds would seem to imply yes.
Furthermore, I wonder about the lack of stigma in a second seed round. It seems like this would happen a lot if the founders didn't raise as much as they needed, and investors felt they could get favorable terms, perhaps more favorable than the first round of investors - which could mean the exact same terms, but operating on additional months of performance data.
To me, it seems like most of the changes in the State of the Seed Industry are about definitions and semantics.
Some of those definitions and semantics lead to different concrete terms. Eg are seed 2's priced rounds? Anecdotally it seems many still aren't, making them materially different from yesterday's series B
I think the trend of Seed Rounds being the "old" Series A seems true (even by the comments here).
The other element in the landscape is the huge increase in accelerators, AngelList and the like. There are now a lot of options to get that first $100-200k to prove out a business idea.
"I wonder if the increase of size of seed round corresponds to startups waiting to seek funding until they are more mature."
Yes, but I don't think it's so much that they wait as that there's more competition. People are, in a sense, working longer on their application for funding and since they are further along (and cost have risen in general) they need more money.
OT: From the headline, I wasn't sure if this was about torrents, GMO crops, or venture capital until clicking. Chalk it up to HN's diverse interests :)
If anecdotes can be trusted, I can explain why this is happening because it's happening to a close friend of mine:
They have a really good idea for a startup, but it's a lot of work to get it to the point where they can start charging for it, after investing 6 months of time they have a prototype and they go to raise a seed (last time one of them did was in 2011) and are basically told that even though the idea is great and the team is strong, a pre-revenue seed is way harder these days.
So they quietly raise $100k to get them forward calling it an "Angel" round, with the idea to raise a $1m to $1.5m seed later in the year, which you can call a second seed if you want to. If they succeed, the average seed
amount goes up, if they fail their smaller seed never happens.
I think investors have learned that revenue is worth twice the valuation and family / angel / incubator money is filling in the earlier stage.
Overall I think it's probably for the better, provided that everyone understands that it's happening.
Whenever people mention revenue (which is an awesome thing) pre-seed, I'm thinking it has to be an internet play. And I don't think what you learn there (and you learn something) is exactly applicable outside of that space.
Yes, all nice data, but $400,000 is, sorry 'bout that, no matter what it's called, is not appropriately called a seed round.
Let me guess: The usual criteria are all the first technical work done, traction significant, and traction growing rapidly. That's not planting or watering seeds; instead, that's a sapling or small tree.
Indeed, for a Web site, costs can be so low that by the time there is significant traction, there is plenty of ad revenue for rapid organic growth and no equity investment needed.
A useful seed round could be $50,000 or even $20,000 except for the legal and BoD expenses!
The distinction I would like to make is whether the money comes from professional investors or amateurs. Money from friends, family, and whatnot: seed. Money from pros: A round.
But that doesn't really square with how others use the words.
The equity investor will likely want
at least 10% of the company. So the
$50,000 check would be for a
company with a post money (after
the check is cashed) evaluation
of $500,000. If the company really
looks like it has a much better than
average shot at $500 million, then
it's an even bet if the company has
only 1 chance in 1000 and a money
maker if a better chance than that.
But that little bit of arithmetic is
well beyond nearly all equity
investors.
A BoD usually means a Delaware C corporation, and that usually has some lawyer expenses. May have some founder employee agreements for some more lawyer expenses. And there may be insurance for the board members, e.g., as at
But really what I meant was that, when there is a BoD meeting, say, monthly or quarterly, the members need funds for travel, food, and lodging, and usually the company pays for those. Just one BoD member flying first class and staying at a high end hotel once a month could eat into a $20,000 seed round in a hurry.
Or, one or a few co-founders, living cheaply, on their own savings, each with a $1000 computer, typing in software can be cheap and where a seed round of $20,000 to $40,000 can do well for Internet fees, publicity, maybe cloud fees. That's what I had in mind.
For amounts that low, you're having meetings online, period. Nobody is flying out to check on their 20k seed investment. It's not even worth their time.
Moreover, they are not going to invest in a $20,000 seed round. They will say that it won't "move the needle". Well, for their 2 and 20, they are correct. For exit value, they can be wildly wrong.
The terminology has been butchered, not least because of VCs wanting to get into earlier stage and changing how they deal with companies. I've heard pre-seed as well, but realistically if you don't have significant progress, the days of paper-napkin idea => investment are pretty much over AFAIK.
IMHO, for professional investors, the "significant progress* is judged by traction as I described. Then, for a Web site startup, traction means users and ad revenue, and quickly a sole founder is nicely profitable with cash enough for organic growth and no equity funding needed.
Traditionally, wasn't the seed round used to keep the founders going during the early months and years? 400k will last a group of founders for years if they are willing to live cheaply.
Of course things change once you need to hire outsiders. But that's what the A round is for.
Thank you, I couldn't agree more. Now we just need to get these people to stop calling themselves venture capitalists, and start using the correct term: growth capitalists. When your first criteria is literally a derisked company, i.e., a company needs traction, you're no longer looking to invest in new ventures; you're looking to grow an established business.
Ad revenue is probably the worst way to try and fund a startup. The economics of ads are horrible unless you can get many millions of visitors reliably, which only works for a small sliver of startups. The rest pin their hopes on ad revenue without doing the math, look at the revenue numbers with horror, wreck their product with more and more ads, then quietly fold.
Now, if you mean that the actual costs to keeping up a website can be covered by ads, then yeah, I guess. But founders have to pay rent and eat, so you're now doing this nights and weekends, and the economics of ad revenue are still the same, except now you can't focus on it much so it takes even longer.
And calling a startup profitable without accounting for the cost of founder time is really misleading.
Other than passion-fuels content creators, which are their own category, my observation is that there are very few ad-revenue-driven startups out there that have raised under six figures and reached any kind of success.
Conclusion: raise a very small round or bootstrap, do the work yourself, and charge actual money for your product. Forget ads. Once truly profitable, raise money if terms make sense.
I can easily understand that a lot of Web site startups fail.
Nearly every effort at powered human flight failed until the Wright brothers did some good engineering.
Actually, in practice, the probability of success means next to nothing, even if it is tiny. Instead, what does matter is the conditional probability of success given additional information. A great example is the probability of an airplane surviving after flying over Baghdad early in Gulf War I. The probability was low. But the conditional probability given the engineering of the Lockheed F-117 stealth bomber was quite high, and, indeed, the F-117s did nearly all the early bombing of Baghdad and never got even a scratch.
I've carefully planned my startup.
On ad revenue, the Mary Meeker reports from Silicon Valley venture capital firm KPCB have long claimed that for ads on Web sites (not merely for mobile devices), can expect revenue of about $2 per 1000 ads displayed. Sure, may get paid by the click, but can still get an average of $2 per 1000 displayed.
Each of my Web pages is just 800 pixels wide with everything positioned to the last pixel with tables. The pages are all just dirt simple; the fonts are large; the contrast is high. There are no icons, rollovers, pull-downs, pop-ups, or overlays. The HTML and CSS are dirt simple and need only a standard Web browser up to date as of about 10, maybe 15, years ago. There is nearly no use of JavaScript, and the pages load nearly instantly and never jump around.
There are both horizontal and vertical scroll bars, and the pages are still usable in a window as narrow as 300 pixels. So, the pages should be fine on any client device from a high end workstation to the cheapest smartphone.
The UI/UX is simple and intuitive, and a child in, say, rural Thailand who knows no English should be able to figure out how to use the English language version of the site from about 15 minutes of experimentation or about 3 minutes of instruction. The Internet data rate a user needs is usually meager.
For the ads, there is a banner at the top of the page in the standard size of 728 pixels wide and 90 pixels high. Down the right side of the page are some ads, at least four, sometimes more, say, an average of five, in the standard size of 300 pixels wide and 250 pixels high.
The site is intended to be of high interest to everyone on the Internet -- children, adults, in the US, and around the world. The results are all not just safe for work but just squeaky clean, proper, uplifting, educational, informative, artistic, engaging, entertaining, especially entertaining, etc.
The site should be especially popular with relatively good user demographics. E.g., the NYC MOMA crowd will love it! But so will the girlfriend of Joe Sixpack.
So, let's see, assume:
Get, on average 24 by 7, one user a second and a peak of about twice that.
Due to the UI/UX, each user sees on average 10 Web pages (it's an interactive UI/UX, fun, awash in variety, something like an adventure, for some users addictive).
Uh, there's no login and no use of cookies, and the site still works fine with JavaScript disabled in the user's browser. The site is one of the best on user privacy: After a user's session state times out, nothing is kept on the user. No background data is used on a user. Still from the UI/UX, there is some good data for ad targeting; I have the math worked out but have not written the code yet; I don't intend that ad targeting yet.
People will want to come back for more and also tell their friends and send results to their friends -- right, virality.
Each page contains one banner ad and on average five of the other ads for an average of six ads per page (the banner ads may yield more revenue per 1000, but I am neglecting that).
So, for assumptions, we're talking on average one user a second; each user sees 10 Web pages; each Web page has six ads; and the revenue is $2 per 1000 ads displayed.<...
I think you've stacked up so many assumptions and points of risk that you're headed for disappointment.
For example, you're using $2 CPM as a baseline, then just multiplying by your 6 ad slots. There probably aren't very many broad audience, high traffic websites out there getting consistent $12 CPMs. That seems really high for any kind of entertainment, viral site. I think $1-2 would probably be more realistic, especially since you're using ad networks instead of selling inventory directly.
Also, I suspect 10 pages per visitor is high, but maybe not.
Finally, it's easy to say "one visitor per second", but that seems kind of arbitrary. Why not ten per second or one per minute? It might be harder than you think to build up to 25 million pageviews per month.
I think you've thought this out well in some regards, but this could very easily turn into something that gets a tens of thousands of visitors per month and ends up making a few hundred dollars, not a few hundred thousand dollars.
> I think you've stacked up so many assumptions and points of risk that you're headed for disappointment.
It's necessary project planning. Some of the planning is some scenarios. I used the Internet before the Web and didn't do such scenarios; I should have; big mistake. At that time, I had a terrific background in computing and applied math and could have done any of the really successful Internet projects. I don't want to miss out this time.
The $2 per 1000 from KPCB's Mary Meeker was, IIRC, for ads displayed, not pages displayed. I agree that having 6 ads on a page might not yield $12 per page, but I don't know how much less it might yield. I did mention that I admit I might have to divide by 2, 4 or some such.
> especially since you're using ad networks instead of selling inventory directly.
If that difference is costing me seriously, then later I will change over. My plans do call for my own ad targeting which, BTW, should be able to work with the ads from an ad network. As I understand it, the ad network business is competitive. So, going to Ford, Pepsi, Game of Thrones, etc. directly myself should not be necessary. Or, apparently lots of Web sites are using ad networks; maybe they are not hopelessly bad.
There is, sure, the medium and longer term, but I want to get to profitability, even just $20,000 a month fairly quickly. If the ad networks get a big bite out of the ad revenue, initially okay by me. Since I'm a solo founder, 100% owner, and the only employee, just $20,000 a month would give me a nicely profitable lifestyle business, and that would not be a project failure. Getting the ads myself now would be premature optimization. More broadly, nearly no business is fully vertically integrated and, instead, makes use of good vendors. Ad networks should be by now close to such good vendors.
If all the people in the world like the site as much as I intend and believe, then I'll have the first business with market value of $1T+. So, for possible results somewhere between $20,000 a month and a $1T+ business, I should go for it.
The probability of success is irrelevant and what is very relevant is the conditional probability of success given the details of my project. The crucial, core details are nice, with some shockingly powerful math well beyond essentially anything out of Silicon Valley. There's essentially no Web site out of Silicon Valley where the powerful, valuable, crucial core is some original applied math with some advanced math prerequisites. E.g., the Stanford, Berkeley, Davis, CMU, MIT, etc. computer science profs didn't take the right courses in grad school to have the prerequisites.
E.g., IIRC the Plenty of Fish guy was getting all his ads just from Google and getting revenue of $1 million a month still as a solo founder and only employee -- serve farm from two old Dell servers. Sure, later he grew his staff to 70 people and then sold out for his $500+ million.
> Also, I suspect 10 pages per visitor is high, but maybe not.
The site is interactive. To get from the site what is intended, it's about 10 pages per visit. People will look at a page for ballpark 30 seconds each. So, the 10 pages will be 300 seconds or 5 minutes. So, I will get their eyeballs to look at my content and then also the ads for ballpark 5 minutes. That 5 minutes figure will vary quite a lot depending on what the user is after in the addictive adventure that is the UI/UX. That is, a user might flip through the pages quickly or on some pages stay a while. I will be eager to look at the site log file and see how long users stay. For now, I'm planning that my session state server time out after 30 minutes -- there is good reason to believe some users will get highly involved and stay that long (really longer since the time out is for inactivity time, not total session time -- total session time can be an hour or two).
I have a number of acquaintances in the situation where they tried to go out and raise a proper Bay Area seed of $1-1.5m, got told they needed more traction, and wound up giving up part of the way through, stopping the round at ~$300k and calling it an angel. Then, traction appears and they come back to finish that initial seed round. Every time I've heard of this happening, the issue was investors becoming more careful with their money rather than founders underestimating how much money they'd need.
Small sample size and all, but if this is the way things are going, it'd be a good thing and force more founders to focus on metrics that matter early.
I've heard the same, or founders that (barely) raise their target seed amounts, but then traction appears and suddenly everyone wants to invest in a follow-on seed. Again, sign of a healthy market. It's not 2013/2014, when it seemed like anyone could raise on pedigree or potential, but capital is available for startups who hit their metrics.
For companies which require decent tech talent to build, I have been wondering if the seed stage has become a market for lemons.
The amounts offered at the seed stage aren't even enough to cover a year's salary/RSUs/other comp for someone with a bit of skill.
The time it takes to raise the seed round isn't time spent building a business. And with that time reallocated, someone technical can probably just save the money at a job or do consulting on the side while doing their startup.
I'd love to raise money for my startup, but every time I look at the numbers, the numbers just don't add up. If I go spend time fundraising, it may or may not work out. I'll definitely be out a bunch of time, and if I succeed I'll be out a bunch of equity. But the amount I get paid for that equity is problematic, especially considering I'll be expected to work below market for a while on my startup.
So instead investors simply don't get the opportunity to invest in what what, in my obviously biased opinion, is one of the few startups that could make their portfolio work.
I'm curious as to the source of this data. While the conclusions seem to match experience -- smaller # of seed deals, higher quality deals netting more money, longer time to raise, the truth is that overall seed investing is dropping significantly. That's what I don't see here - overall numbers. Also, how is this location dependent? Tomasz is in the Silicon Valley area, and Silicon Valley will always have metrics in deal size and quantity that don't match other regions. From what I'm seeing, angel / seed rounds in places like Boston, NYC, DC, Austin, Chicago, and some other places are dropping precipitously. It's looking like a major retreat right now from investing in the highly risky startup asset class.
I thought a seed round was historically money you raised from friends and family, and it was followed (assuming success) by an A round raised from professional investors, meaning VCs.
Has that changed? If you're raising a million from your friends, that's rather a well-heeled bunch you hang with.
Whatever. In my part of the world the seed market is excellent. I recently planted out 9 pumpkin seedlings, which are doing well thanks to the recent rain.
I've also got about 30 capsicum seedlings and two lychees, which are coming along nicely. That was a substantial seed round, Series B. Recently I added to my seed empire by planting three avocado pips - they will take some time to grow. I think that makes them Series C.
These are all heirloom and organic (actually, veganic) and will reduce my food bill by a tangible amount, which is great because my investors are demanding and hungry for more. Where I live, organic produce is exorbitant.
Of course should the seed market tank, I've got a hedge in that my day job is primarily focused on designing distributed data pipelines and data-related architecture.
If you search on "planting avocado seeds", the first page of results are on how to plant them, with little discussion of why not to plant them.
“Ungrafted” trees (like those grown inside from seeds) rarely produce fruit. In order to have an avocado tree that produces fruit, one must graft the seedling."
I'm taking a portfolio approach, whereby I'll average in over time until I'm holding about 20 or so plants. Worst case I'll have some lovely shade and beautiful green trees.
44 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 110 ms ] threadThe second seed round, makes me even more suspicious of this: are we simply renaming A and B rounds to seed 1 and seed 2 rounds? The increased size of these rounds would seem to imply yes.
Furthermore, I wonder about the lack of stigma in a second seed round. It seems like this would happen a lot if the founders didn't raise as much as they needed, and investors felt they could get favorable terms, perhaps more favorable than the first round of investors - which could mean the exact same terms, but operating on additional months of performance data.
To me, it seems like most of the changes in the State of the Seed Industry are about definitions and semantics.
The other element in the landscape is the huge increase in accelerators, AngelList and the like. There are now a lot of options to get that first $100-200k to prove out a business idea.
Yes, but I don't think it's so much that they wait as that there's more competition. People are, in a sense, working longer on their application for funding and since they are further along (and cost have risen in general) they need more money.
They have a really good idea for a startup, but it's a lot of work to get it to the point where they can start charging for it, after investing 6 months of time they have a prototype and they go to raise a seed (last time one of them did was in 2011) and are basically told that even though the idea is great and the team is strong, a pre-revenue seed is way harder these days.
So they quietly raise $100k to get them forward calling it an "Angel" round, with the idea to raise a $1m to $1.5m seed later in the year, which you can call a second seed if you want to. If they succeed, the average seed amount goes up, if they fail their smaller seed never happens.
I think investors have learned that revenue is worth twice the valuation and family / angel / incubator money is filling in the earlier stage.
Overall I think it's probably for the better, provided that everyone understands that it's happening.
Aka 2015 seed round = 90's A round, as many have observed already.
Let me guess: The usual criteria are all the first technical work done, traction significant, and traction growing rapidly. That's not planting or watering seeds; instead, that's a sapling or small tree.
Indeed, for a Web site, costs can be so low that by the time there is significant traction, there is plenty of ad revenue for rapid organic growth and no equity investment needed.
A useful seed round could be $50,000 or even $20,000 except for the legal and BoD expenses!
But that doesn't really square with how others use the words.
But that little bit of arithmetic is well beyond nearly all equity investors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directors_and_officers_liabili...
But really what I meant was that, when there is a BoD meeting, say, monthly or quarterly, the members need funds for travel, food, and lodging, and usually the company pays for those. Just one BoD member flying first class and staying at a high end hotel once a month could eat into a $20,000 seed round in a hurry.
Or, one or a few co-founders, living cheaply, on their own savings, each with a $1000 computer, typing in software can be cheap and where a seed round of $20,000 to $40,000 can do well for Internet fees, publicity, maybe cloud fees. That's what I had in mind.
For those small seed rounds you describe, you're better off self funding and saving up the money yourself.
Of course things change once you need to hire outsiders. But that's what the A round is for.
My guess is that the tune is called by the limited partners who are much more comfortable investing in growth capital.
Now, if you mean that the actual costs to keeping up a website can be covered by ads, then yeah, I guess. But founders have to pay rent and eat, so you're now doing this nights and weekends, and the economics of ad revenue are still the same, except now you can't focus on it much so it takes even longer.
And calling a startup profitable without accounting for the cost of founder time is really misleading.
Other than passion-fuels content creators, which are their own category, my observation is that there are very few ad-revenue-driven startups out there that have raised under six figures and reached any kind of success.
Conclusion: raise a very small round or bootstrap, do the work yourself, and charge actual money for your product. Forget ads. Once truly profitable, raise money if terms make sense.
Nearly every effort at powered human flight failed until the Wright brothers did some good engineering.
Actually, in practice, the probability of success means next to nothing, even if it is tiny. Instead, what does matter is the conditional probability of success given additional information. A great example is the probability of an airplane surviving after flying over Baghdad early in Gulf War I. The probability was low. But the conditional probability given the engineering of the Lockheed F-117 stealth bomber was quite high, and, indeed, the F-117s did nearly all the early bombing of Baghdad and never got even a scratch.
I've carefully planned my startup.
On ad revenue, the Mary Meeker reports from Silicon Valley venture capital firm KPCB have long claimed that for ads on Web sites (not merely for mobile devices), can expect revenue of about $2 per 1000 ads displayed. Sure, may get paid by the click, but can still get an average of $2 per 1000 displayed.
Each of my Web pages is just 800 pixels wide with everything positioned to the last pixel with tables. The pages are all just dirt simple; the fonts are large; the contrast is high. There are no icons, rollovers, pull-downs, pop-ups, or overlays. The HTML and CSS are dirt simple and need only a standard Web browser up to date as of about 10, maybe 15, years ago. There is nearly no use of JavaScript, and the pages load nearly instantly and never jump around.
There are both horizontal and vertical scroll bars, and the pages are still usable in a window as narrow as 300 pixels. So, the pages should be fine on any client device from a high end workstation to the cheapest smartphone.
The UI/UX is simple and intuitive, and a child in, say, rural Thailand who knows no English should be able to figure out how to use the English language version of the site from about 15 minutes of experimentation or about 3 minutes of instruction. The Internet data rate a user needs is usually meager.
For the ads, there is a banner at the top of the page in the standard size of 728 pixels wide and 90 pixels high. Down the right side of the page are some ads, at least four, sometimes more, say, an average of five, in the standard size of 300 pixels wide and 250 pixels high.
The site is intended to be of high interest to everyone on the Internet -- children, adults, in the US, and around the world. The results are all not just safe for work but just squeaky clean, proper, uplifting, educational, informative, artistic, engaging, entertaining, especially entertaining, etc.
The site should be especially popular with relatively good user demographics. E.g., the NYC MOMA crowd will love it! But so will the girlfriend of Joe Sixpack.
So, let's see, assume:
Get, on average 24 by 7, one user a second and a peak of about twice that.
Due to the UI/UX, each user sees on average 10 Web pages (it's an interactive UI/UX, fun, awash in variety, something like an adventure, for some users addictive).
Uh, there's no login and no use of cookies, and the site still works fine with JavaScript disabled in the user's browser. The site is one of the best on user privacy: After a user's session state times out, nothing is kept on the user. No background data is used on a user. Still from the UI/UX, there is some good data for ad targeting; I have the math worked out but have not written the code yet; I don't intend that ad targeting yet.
People will want to come back for more and also tell their friends and send results to their friends -- right, virality.
Each page contains one banner ad and on average five of the other ads for an average of six ads per page (the banner ads may yield more revenue per 1000, but I am neglecting that).
So, for assumptions, we're talking on average one user a second; each user sees 10 Web pages; each Web page has six ads; and the revenue is $2 per 1000 ads displayed.<...
For example, you're using $2 CPM as a baseline, then just multiplying by your 6 ad slots. There probably aren't very many broad audience, high traffic websites out there getting consistent $12 CPMs. That seems really high for any kind of entertainment, viral site. I think $1-2 would probably be more realistic, especially since you're using ad networks instead of selling inventory directly.
Also, I suspect 10 pages per visitor is high, but maybe not.
Finally, it's easy to say "one visitor per second", but that seems kind of arbitrary. Why not ten per second or one per minute? It might be harder than you think to build up to 25 million pageviews per month.
I think you've thought this out well in some regards, but this could very easily turn into something that gets a tens of thousands of visitors per month and ends up making a few hundred dollars, not a few hundred thousand dollars.
Good luck though, I really do hope it works out!
It's necessary project planning. Some of the planning is some scenarios. I used the Internet before the Web and didn't do such scenarios; I should have; big mistake. At that time, I had a terrific background in computing and applied math and could have done any of the really successful Internet projects. I don't want to miss out this time.
The $2 per 1000 from KPCB's Mary Meeker was, IIRC, for ads displayed, not pages displayed. I agree that having 6 ads on a page might not yield $12 per page, but I don't know how much less it might yield. I did mention that I admit I might have to divide by 2, 4 or some such.
> especially since you're using ad networks instead of selling inventory directly.
If that difference is costing me seriously, then later I will change over. My plans do call for my own ad targeting which, BTW, should be able to work with the ads from an ad network. As I understand it, the ad network business is competitive. So, going to Ford, Pepsi, Game of Thrones, etc. directly myself should not be necessary. Or, apparently lots of Web sites are using ad networks; maybe they are not hopelessly bad.
There is, sure, the medium and longer term, but I want to get to profitability, even just $20,000 a month fairly quickly. If the ad networks get a big bite out of the ad revenue, initially okay by me. Since I'm a solo founder, 100% owner, and the only employee, just $20,000 a month would give me a nicely profitable lifestyle business, and that would not be a project failure. Getting the ads myself now would be premature optimization. More broadly, nearly no business is fully vertically integrated and, instead, makes use of good vendors. Ad networks should be by now close to such good vendors.
If all the people in the world like the site as much as I intend and believe, then I'll have the first business with market value of $1T+. So, for possible results somewhere between $20,000 a month and a $1T+ business, I should go for it.
The probability of success is irrelevant and what is very relevant is the conditional probability of success given the details of my project. The crucial, core details are nice, with some shockingly powerful math well beyond essentially anything out of Silicon Valley. There's essentially no Web site out of Silicon Valley where the powerful, valuable, crucial core is some original applied math with some advanced math prerequisites. E.g., the Stanford, Berkeley, Davis, CMU, MIT, etc. computer science profs didn't take the right courses in grad school to have the prerequisites.
E.g., IIRC the Plenty of Fish guy was getting all his ads just from Google and getting revenue of $1 million a month still as a solo founder and only employee -- serve farm from two old Dell servers. Sure, later he grew his staff to 70 people and then sold out for his $500+ million.
> Also, I suspect 10 pages per visitor is high, but maybe not.
The site is interactive. To get from the site what is intended, it's about 10 pages per visit. People will look at a page for ballpark 30 seconds each. So, the 10 pages will be 300 seconds or 5 minutes. So, I will get their eyeballs to look at my content and then also the ads for ballpark 5 minutes. That 5 minutes figure will vary quite a lot depending on what the user is after in the addictive adventure that is the UI/UX. That is, a user might flip through the pages quickly or on some pages stay a while. I will be eager to look at the site log file and see how long users stay. For now, I'm planning that my session state server time out after 30 minutes -- there is good reason to believe some users will get highly involved and stay that long (really longer since the time out is for inactivity time, not total session time -- total session time can be an hour or two).
> Finally, it's ...
So if a new technology is introduced to make small teams or single founders very productive, then the size of seed rounds will go up.
(Assuming that the team needs money at some point for something.)
Small sample size and all, but if this is the way things are going, it'd be a good thing and force more founders to focus on metrics that matter early.
E.g. this scenario is entirely plausible:
1) Friends and family
2) Accelerator
3) Some combination of pre-seed / angel (depending on whether it's individual or institutional money)
4) Seed
Seed is basically just the new A.
The amounts offered at the seed stage aren't even enough to cover a year's salary/RSUs/other comp for someone with a bit of skill.
The time it takes to raise the seed round isn't time spent building a business. And with that time reallocated, someone technical can probably just save the money at a job or do consulting on the side while doing their startup.
I'd love to raise money for my startup, but every time I look at the numbers, the numbers just don't add up. If I go spend time fundraising, it may or may not work out. I'll definitely be out a bunch of time, and if I succeed I'll be out a bunch of equity. But the amount I get paid for that equity is problematic, especially considering I'll be expected to work below market for a while on my startup.
So instead investors simply don't get the opportunity to invest in what what, in my obviously biased opinion, is one of the few startups that could make their portfolio work.
Has that changed? If you're raising a million from your friends, that's rather a well-heeled bunch you hang with.
I've also got about 30 capsicum seedlings and two lychees, which are coming along nicely. That was a substantial seed round, Series B. Recently I added to my seed empire by planting three avocado pips - they will take some time to grow. I think that makes them Series C.
These are all heirloom and organic (actually, veganic) and will reduce my food bill by a tangible amount, which is great because my investors are demanding and hungry for more. Where I live, organic produce is exorbitant.
Of course should the seed market tank, I've got a hedge in that my day job is primarily focused on designing distributed data pipelines and data-related architecture.
“Ungrafted” trees (like those grown inside from seeds) rarely produce fruit. In order to have an avocado tree that produces fruit, one must graft the seedling."
I'm taking a portfolio approach, whereby I'll average in over time until I'm holding about 20 or so plants. Worst case I'll have some lovely shade and beautiful green trees.