VC partners, associates, and investment assistants are all similarly bewildered about what satellites are made of, the complexities behind developing them, and the applications they can unlock. There is a concerning knowledge gap - a politer term than ignorance - about space systems engineering. This kind of reviewer is especially aggressive during calls and pitches because they want to make clear they know better.Īll this leads to one of the biggest problems present in the space VC sector: a lack of space technology knowledge. The unfriendly young reviewer who hasn’t launched anything to space in their life but has secured a salary by making everyone believe they know everything about space tech and scaling organizations.The last microprocessor he worked with was a Z80. The friendly “gray beard” who worked in many classified projects during the 1970s and spends half of the meetings bragging about how much he cannot tell you about those projects because tOp sEcReT.In my experience, there are two kinds of tech reviewers: There’s also a generous dose of bluffing from every side: startups trying to look bigger than they are markets presented as more attractive than they are investors trying to look more successful than they are technical reviewers trying to sound more accomplished than they are. There is very little reliance on data, despite most VC websites claiming they are “data-driven.” There’s a lot of talking, endless presentations, body language - you can tell how excited a VC is from how they sit - and autocratic decision-making structures. While machine learning and artificial intelligence are the darlings of our post-industrial economy, fundraising is an extremely human-oriented, analog activity whose methods probably haven’t changed in the last 50 years. The more valuable stories come from those who failed miserably, for their experience can depict the quirks of the process like success stories cannot. Most of the VC tales we tend to hear are success stories told by those who got and continue to get funded. In any case, VCs who provide honest feedback and not just polite excuses are more helpful because startup founders can use that feedback to correct the trajectory and retry again later. Unless, of course, the polite rejections above are just euphemisms for hidden, more subtle things such as “I just don’t like your face,” or “I’m not vibin’ with your idea.” Therefore, the investors are disappointed at the lack of precisely what you aim to accomplish with their money. After all, you are fundraising because you want to increase your maturity and improve your revenues. If you read the rejection reasons above, you can quickly see that most of those (lack of recurring revenues, lack of maturity) are typical for early stage startups. In the VC universe, cause and effect might be easily interchangeable. Your revenues are too “lumpy” (hey, good that we have any revenues at all in these times, no?).Your differentiation is weak (bigger, deeper moats would help).The VC wants to wait until your business is more mature.This feverish quest for funding can frequently lead to polite rejection. For that other one, it was the charisma of the startup’s founders. For this one, moats were the single most important thing ever. For that one, let the guy alone to make him feel the fear of missing out. The right strategy for approaching one venture capital fund might be the opposite of what’s worked with another fund.
#Venture synonym series#
For an engineer like me with a mind shaped by equations, this was particularly unsettling as I was struggling to find clues in a field riddled with jargon like USPs, pre-money, post-money, dilution, moats, seed stage, Series A through D and exit. As I started pitching investors, my first impression was that there was no ‘manual’ with rules for playing the game. This connection is stronger, however, in noble than in honorable.ĭescribe a particularly honorable person with the help of Grammar Coach.Here’s the story. ✅ The common idea behind these words is that being of high rank means you are moral and good, which is not actually true. ✅ While these two words are very similar, noble focuses particularly on a sense of moral excellence, whereas honorable focuses particularly on values of honesty and integrity ( Donating your salary to charity was a noble thing to do It was honorable of you to come clean). Honorable can also describe being of high rank ( I knew he was honorable, so I was happy to lend him money It’s a delight to receive such an honorable guest). ✅ Honorable describes having honor: that is, being honest, fair, and otherwise moral. ✅ Noble used to primarily describe being of high social rank, but now means having a particularly good or strong sense of morals ( The king has a noble visitor She was a noble and brave person).
0 kommentar(er)
