Ellecoin

Founders, when you get rejected by a VC that you would have loved to have in, you don't need to get salty or play it cool. You can actually just say: "Would have loved to have you in, but all good."

Fundraising Tip for Founders: You don’t need to convince the whole room, but can you get a few of the smartest people who disagree with you to come around? Think there’s something meaningful in earning a “yes” from someone who started with a very well-informed “no”. People who know their shit, ask tough questions, and eventually say, “Okay, I see what ur seeing.” If everyone loves the idea immediately, I’d be a little suspicious. If nobody ever comes around, maybe ur just wrong.

The best pre-seed deals I've done looked wrong to most investors at the time. No lead. Thin revenue. Investors passing. The founders weren't delusional. They knew something the room didn't, usually about the customer. In poker, that's a read. You push chips in while everyone else folds because you've seen something they haven't. Before product-market fit, it looks like a bad call. After, it looks obvious. Founders: what do you know about your customer that investors keep missing?

what's harder bootstrapping or raising?

founder friends keep asking me what to look for in investors. i spent years as a vc, and even launched a fund backed by amazon and x (formerly twitter), here’s what i’ve learned to look for: – they can picture the world 10 years out and work back to what has to be true today
– they bet on you, not hype
– they care how a product feels, not just what it does
– they believe taste and brand are moats
– they decide fast
– they give you a fast no, not a slow maybe
– they don’t ask who else is in
– they stay through the hard parts, not just the up-and-to-the-right parts
– they tell you the truth, even when it’s uncomfortable
– they pick up the phone when it matters
– they’ve built something themselves, or sat close enough to know how hard it is
– they don’t try to run your co.
– they don’t back your competitor next quarter
– they open doors if they make you feel uncomfortable, you’ve got a good one. if they make you feel like a failure, you should have vetted better.

good rounds don't magically come to the deserving the right way to nail a pitch is to hand pick your own audience of VCs well before you actually kick off the round this is what the best founders do time and again. so let's talk about how to find that audience teapaw.org/harris/status/21176369…

Founders: what's one thing you wish investors just told you upfront? I've been on both sides of the table, so I'll answer as many as I can honestly. Drop it below 👇

Random observation from a founder relatively new to VC fundraising. I’ve only been through a Series A for one of my companies, and I’m preparing for a Series A for another. So I certainly don’t claim to be an expert on venture capital. But coming from a capital markets background, there’s something about the VC fundraising process that I find fascinating. In capital markets, if you want alpha, you do the homework. You research the market. You identify opportunities before others recognize them. You develop conviction, take a position, and hopefully capture the upside. The opportunity doesn’t come knocking on your door with a pitch deck asking you to invest. So why does venture capital sometimes seem to work in reverse? One of the most common pieces of fundraising advice I’ve received is that founders need to proactively reach out to VCs, build relationships, pitch their companies, and constantly follow up. Shouldn’t it be the other way around, too? I’m running two companies. I’ve completed one Series A and am preparing for another. I barely have time to fundraise, let alone chase VCs. Interestingly, the investors who impress me most are the persistent ones who do their homework, understand our business, and add value BEFORE getting an allocation. They’re often the ones who become our strongest supporters. If VCs only invest in founders who are good at fundraising, are they missing founders who are too busy building? Genuinely curious what founders and VCs think. I’m still learning this game.

Feels like 1) startup ideas 2) winners of those ideas are increasingly decided by venture capital. There are many teams building the same product or service however only a couple usually are "legible" to capital. Even customers themselves come from the portfolio of the same VCs and other customers usually ask if "you have raised VC and who did you raise it from and how much" Not to shade on the effort of the founders, it still takes a lot of hard work. However after some time in startups, you notice hat winning does not always have to be painful. Just sad that there are no "garage" startups anymore.

"we're better than them and they raised 3x what we struggle to raise" I dont buy it. teams set out to raise different amounts, and the goals, the ambition and how they think about valuation can just be different. but if you assume more money raised = the better, then the other team is just stronger. if they were below your level, theyd have raised another amount or not raise at all. so if I were you Id ask what they had that got them that round, and you dont. and if you say "it was the network they got from X" - someone might as well say the same about your round too when it's announced.