> If your company is going to succeed, why do you need VC?
It's not just the VC but also the definition of success. Nowadays I see this mostly defined as being able to scale up quickly to - preferably - millions of users, and raking in loads of revenue in short time.
But why not have modest goals in mind to define success? Get decent, normal salaries for the initial team of employees, instead of striving to become rich. Then grow slowly and steadily.. you won't need VC at all that way, if you plan things right.
Scrap the word 'disruption' from your business plan. It originally had a negative connotation anyway. Go for sustainability in the holistic meaning of the word..
(PS. I like the use the term 'anti-disruption-layer' in these modern times.. trying to create one)
I wonder how much of getting VC money is just wanted to be in SF where all the customers are (if you are selling to startups anyway/tech b2b anyway) and pissing it all away on rent?
I think the biggest thing the Government can do in Australia anyway to help these smaller wins is promote VCs to invest in companies outside Sydney and Melbourne. You could do this by providing fibre, airports, easier local gov tender process...
Only rub is, until you hit 1 million, you're making essentially $0. And that'll take lots of time, people, and servers that all need to be paid for.
Welcome to the social network.
Unpopular opinion: if your company is going to fail, you need VC money. This, to me, is one of the biggest problems facing our entire industry. The 1/20 that succeed have to carry the 19/20 that want to be cool and have bean bags in their office.
The (smaller) VC's have to, ideally, find that little narrow gap between a self-funded startup starting to "go" and the time when the founders decide they can live on a quarter million a year and be just fine. To be frank, it sounds really hard and I don't envy them the task. But they do get to charge 2% for doing nothing and I could do with some of that :)
How can we create a VC industry that's focussed on more, smaller wins? Perhaps a focus on recurring dividends? Or does the math work out that there is simply no point because the big wins are so, so big?