Google Ventures for example has a similar capital services model. Once you took money, you had access to a pool of GV folks who could help you with design, finance, engineering, etc. Having this talent to tap in to helps you avoid spending early money on things that aren't worth a full FTE but need to be solved.
The only thing new here is that they took out the writing of the check first.
Me too. :)
> and the economics are hard to swallow for some founders and for later-stage VCs...
Can you elaborate on that a bit? What model are you considering and what constraints do you see?
If I were a Series A investor, I might take issue with the initial cap table being so diluted by a venture studio, but I' not a Series A investor.
I'm being very pithy here-- happy to discuss at any point if you'd like.
I would totally jump at the opportunity to take something through the early stages with a venture studio before raising money. It makes a lot of sense for a lot of reasons-- just probably not to certain kinds of founders or investors.
How diluted do you think it would have to be to make the economics work for the venture studio? Where do you think a Series A investor might start taking issue with the dilution?
I'd suggest thinking about this as an innovation on the venture studio model, or later-stage accelerator model (e.g., YC's Series A cohorts). I've spent the last few months toying with the idea of a venture studio and the economics are hard to swallow for some founders and for later-stage VCs... A model like this, where you get an operating, experienced serial entrepreneur to help you and kick your ass... I like that a lot. It's different and worth following, if nothing more.