> Sumon and crew will be successful at whatever they do next, there's no doubt about that.

I don't know how you can make that statement unless you know something that is not public knowledge.

To repay your investors if it doesn't work out is class (though they say it was from 'money in the bank', it is very well possible that this was simply the easiest way of liquidating the business and that the founders let their share of the payment due to them go), there is no doubt about that.

But the fact is that this didn't work out, how the next project fares remains to be seen.

Past failures are not a guarantee for future success or something to that effect.

What impresses me most about this farewell note is that they decided not to go for mediocrity but instead decided to pull the plug.

That takes guts, and is on par with the repaying of the investors (which is relatively easy if you have the $, otherwise it is much harder and even more classy).

> I don't know how you can make that statement unless you know something that is not public knowledge.

Probably through personal experience, Ive met Sumon a couple of times and would happily take bets on him being part of something successful.

I'd take that bet because they built a great product. It didn't work out and they want to move on to better things I'd happily be a part of that if I were an investor. They seem to have learnt the lesson that investors keep screaming and founders keep ignoring about trying to find the right market.

Why is it classy to throw in the towel? The letter doesn't suggest that investors asked for their money back. This is the worst case scenario given my understanding of the VC market. It sounds like the team has lost their momentum, but certainly they have learned something in the process. If they dissolve the company and start something new which becomes successful, the original investors get nothing. There's nothing wrong with that from a morality perspective, but don't assume that investors want their money back - their reasons for investing might be complex.

I agree it's pretty rare to see a company fold before the money gives out. I suspect the "opportunity cost" which is mentioned in passing was probably a significant factor.

They had two years in the bank. They knew the risks and the likelihood of what would have happened. They could have been paid themselves for 2 years, tried a lot of different things, and potentially wasted the money. That is how it usually goes. Instead they cut their losses. I'm pretty sure the investors would rather have their money back than nothing at all.

By "they", I assume that you meant the founders. Did the founders have personal losses to be cut?

> I'm pretty sure the investors would rather have their money back than nothing at all.

Did you ask them? Are you yourself a VC investor? Its rather possible that investors saw promising talent and wanted to buy 2 years of their time.

The investors could have said "No, keep the money, do something else." Who would turn that down?

Who knows, maybe they did ?

Maybe they felt like being free from the extra duties having 'foreign' capital brings with it.