"I don't want to make a little bit of money every day... I want to make a fuckton of money all at once!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzAdXyPYKQo

Haha! Classic:

"If you show revenue, people will ask how much and it will never be enough. The company that was the 100x or the 1000x becomes the 2x dog.

But if you have no revenue you can say you are pre-revenue. You are a potential pure play. It is not about how much you earn. It is about how much you are worth.

And who is worth the most? Companies that lose money. Pinterest, Snapchat. Amazon has lost money every quarter for the last effing 25 years and that Bezos m*cker is the effing king"

The sad part is if you strip the over the top hyperbole, it's actually a pretty true to life situation. I've seen founders deal with that problem first hand.

Amazon has been profitable for the past eight quarters in a row.

If you look at the date on the video you will see that it was posted eight quarters ago.

Ha! I didn't realize :)

As always, it depends. If you're in a land-grab market with $100 billion potential and take the slow route, you'll be squeezed. If, on the other hand, you choose a market with a low ceiling, you'll likely be forced to finance with retained earnings and/or debt.

'Market' is often very fluid. Large companies may be in government consulting, but as you scale down there is plenty of room for various specialties in that same 'Market'.

You find this all over the place as 800$ Aeron chairs and 40$ iKea chairs are both in the same and very different markets.

Spam often?

That's how pretty much every Angel invests. They want to exit at the B or C round, or have an acquisition in the mean time.

Angels and VCs are more often than not at odds because they have different economics they are playing for.

An angel puts in 250k? They would be thrilled with a 10M exit. Along comes a VC with a 5M A round and suddenly they need a 500M exit to feel like it was a success.

Who considers 10x settling?

Institutions whose portfolio economics demand 1000x returns or bust.

And also some of the individuals (angels) investing alongside the above institutions.

That's some really dumb money if it needs 1000x returns somewhere to beat index funds.

Hey - when the median return of an investment in a VC portfolio is 0, that alpha has to come from somewhere.

And you know what? It's a valid strategy for those with the skill (or luck) to execute repeatedly. Sequoia earns their 3 and 30, or however much they charge.

All I'm saying is that when a company takes VC funding, the goal of the VCs can override the goals of earlier, individually less powerful investors (i.e. the angels). So while an early angel might be fine/thrilled with a 10x exit, the VC might not be because their risk/reward profile differs from the angel. Thus, when investing in companies intending to seek venture capital, one must be aware of the high payout, low odds bet into which they are entering.

Of course, there are ways to mitigate this like secondary market liquidity or institutional investors buying stock from earlier angels as part of a round. But the point still stands.

You're comparing apples to oranges since LPs are at least partly looking for assets with lower amount of correlation to these public markets that they're already exposed to