(I particularly like the bit about how a $5k angel punched waaaaay above their weight due to introductions.)
Would like to underscore, as someone who did fundraising for the first time this year and has done high-volume prospecting before in e.g. hiring and sales: you will absolutely die if you do not have A System and in fundraising that probably means a spreadsheet.
You might think you have a good working memory. I have a good working memory. I am not capable of remembering which of 76 people lit up particularly when given the A anecdote or whether there are outstanding document requests from Prospect 37.
(Given that fundraising is by its nature an occasional activity I think it's structurally always going to be less well served than e.g. CRMs for sales teams, but I think one really compelling value ad as an angel investor might be "Clear 4 hours for me and we will Airtable this")
(I also love @kevinakwok's idea of, effectively, having a startup CEO use Front or similar to share access to their inbox during fundraising cycles with an extremely trusted person who would do nothing but fundraising inbox management.)
A weird thing, structurally, about fundraising is the best CEOs *in the world* will get only about 10-40 reps on it over their entire careers, whereas the other side of the conversation does almost literally nothing else.
But for a variety of reasons the CEO is almost always the person who has fundraising responsibility at startups, and often the person who has rounds-to-sole responsibility, which seems like about as good idea as giving them rounds-to-sole responsibility for mobile apps *forever.*
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In honor of someone’s bad bug today, I will retell a story of my worst bug:
Once upon a time I was the CEO and entire engineering team of a company which sent appointment reminders.
Each reminder was sent by a cron job draining a queue. That queue was filled by another cron job
Reminders could fail but the queue draining job had always been bulletproof and had never failed to execute or take more than a few seconds to complete. It ran every 5 minute.
So I had never noticed the queue *filling* job wasn’t idempotent.
Idempotent is a $10 word for a simple concept: an operation where you get the same result no matter how many times you run it.
Adding 2 + 2 is idempotent. Creating a new record in your database may not be; the number of rows in the DB goes up each time.
One thing that I non-ironically appreciate about the cryptocurrency community is that the transparency ethos from those projects that are not outright frauds will provide an unprecedented amount of historical content into e.g. collapse of financial institutions.
Years of Congressional inquiries, books, etc later, most people (even very interested people) have a very poor mental model of what happened during the global financial crisis.
Meanwhile in crypto you can literally see the warroom chat logs as they're losing tens of millions of dollars of depositor's money and trying frantically to stop it.
The most recent hiring class in Japan is larger than the entire Japan team from the day I joined.
We have our first product (which I’ll elide mentioning) where the ratio in usage between US and Japan is commensurate with economic size.
We’ve recently released convenience store (konbini) payments in Japan. Early users are loving it.
Our experience in many markets has been that users get jaw-dropping conversion lifts for letting customers pay in the way they want, versus standardizing on cards only worldwide.
A metacomment: This is not a unique insight about fashion, but it being phrased in terms of Searle’s Chinese Room would have given undergraduate me *permission to understand it.*
This effect creates ~infinite demand for teaching (and repackaging teaching).
People often wonder whether the market for teaching (or advice, or commentary, or...) is saturated, and it is remarkably underserved, both along the axis of which topics are covered and on ways-of-seeing-the-world they’re presented in.
It was once observed to me that there are some communities where people who know each other only as avatars would quote take a bullet for endquote each other, and while that is probably a level one does not need to model for an API response, allowing high-trust spaces is powerful
In some ways the future is here but not evenly distributed; you can model, for example, companies as being notably high mutual trust islands in a sea of (presumably!) lower mutual trust relationships.
Which implies something about e.g. their Slack channels.
And on that spectrum / within that dimensional space there are likely forms of trust which exist but which we can’t conveniently see or reason about right now, and who knows, perhaps forms of trust that do not yet exist but should.
“What do we do with this dollar substitute?”
“Is it a dollar?”
“No. It is critically not a dollar.”
“So what is it?”
“I hope it is as close to a dollar as anything in the world can be without being a dollar.”
“So it is worth a dollar in all circumstances?”
“No. Not that dumb.”
“So when is it worth a dollar?”
“Almost all of the time.”
“Can you drill into *almost* a bit?”
“I’d prefer not to.”
“Have you considered the thing you think is not a dollar may in fact be similar to most members of the set ‘Things that are not a dollar.’”
“Not ideal.”
“And?”