Comment by aliasxneo
3 days ago
I've been in an interesting spot the last few months. I've pitched probably two dozen or so VCs and, and while almost every case showed interest, it was quickly followed by "rules" and "desires" that were antithetical to the product.
The product I am building is a decentralized trust system. The word "trust" is literally in the name. It requires very specific decisions and a very specific organizational and legal structure to be successful. Why? Because anything else doesn't breed trust.
But that's actually the problem. The VCs don't like those things, because in almost every case it relinquishes their control/power. Or, they ask us to do something either questionably or blatantly unethical in order to sweeten the pot. I was one of those founders "unaware of the Cancer Capital situation." After six months of pitching, it's become extremely obvious to me that the current VC system is incapable of funding anything ethical or long-term.
I don't know what the right answer is from here. Our current attempt is founding a syndicate of like-minded individuals to bootstrap a pre-seed. It seems like the only possibility where you might be able to maintain an ethical vision without fighting a cancerous overlord. We'll see how it goes.
I think the problem is that decentralization is almost by definition antithetical to the ability to capitalize on something. As you indicated, decentralization means diffusion of control and power, which are essential to capitalize on that thing. Why would a VC or any capitalist invest money if they cannot see a way to earn back multiples?
Sure you could make some money, but nowhere near the monopoly profits everyone is seeking. A decentralized Google would never be as profitable as a centralized one, so where would a capitalist prefer putting their money?
IMO this is also why decentralized systems or peer-to-peer applications never really caught on. Some point to technical challenges or usability issues or a lack of use-cases, but I believe all of those could have been overcome with enough investment. There just wasn't enough money in them compared to centralization. (It didn't help that the only really popular systems were almost entirely used for illegal or unproductive purposes.)
And these dynamics over time are what have led to the asymmetric Internet today. The Internet was supposed to be equal, with each node capable of being a client and a server and, heck, even a router. But that's clearly not what we have today: networks hostile to P2P connectivity, increasingly powerful centralized services, and decreasingly capable end-user devices.
Well said. To be fair, there is a proposed healthy income stream to the company proper, and the investors are buying equity in the company (at relatively low scale, >$20M ARR). But that's sort of an "old school" play and it seems most VCs want more than just equity. Or if they do take equity, it comes with some insane pump and dump plan that would destroy the very thing we're building.
But I think the broader point I'm making is that what _is_ making all of the money nowadays is increasingly unethical and counter-productive to society. For example, see Kalshi and co. That, in our experience, is what the VCs are in all of the rage for right now, and as I said it's completely antithetical to our vision.
"Why would a VC or any capitalist invest money if they cannot see a way to earn back multiples?"
Why did Andrew Carnegie invest in building public libraries? Surely it wasn't because he was expecting a capital return.
The oligarchs (at least some of them) used to feel some responsibility to the betterment of man. It really seems like today's billionaires really only care about money and power and nothing else.
In case of Andrew Carnegie, it was probably desire at end of his life to been rembered as not only a ruthless businessmen and monopolist.
"Carnegie spent his last years as a philanthropist. From 1901 forward, public attention was turned from the shrewd business acumen which had enabled Carnegie to accumulate such a fortune, to the public-spirited way in which he devoted himself to using it on philanthropic projects."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Carnegie
Bill Gates is in similar phase of life.
As an olive branch, I came in connection with a group (mostly out of Asia) that seems to be more connected by the day (meaning I keep making more mutual connections). They have a very specific vision for capital aimed at funding generational companies whose vision aligns with bettering humanity rather than exploiting it.
They are out there, but unfortunately very much on the fringe because it's difficult to raise money with that ethos.
I'm not saying the VC scene is great, but I mean what's in this for them?
It hasn't occurred to you that your idea might not stand on its own? If your product was amazing, serious and highly ethical investors would throw themselves over each other to invest with you. There are many such investors, but they have strict requirements on what they invest in as well.
You don't have any God given right to other people's money for high risk ventures. Neither does anybody else. But it's easy to blame "the system" when things don't go our way.
Well, is there a clear route to being a >$10B business? If not, it's probably not a good match for VC. But that's OK.
Yeah, you need to look away from private equity investment. Mutuals, co-ops, LLPs, there's lots of other models, but VC and PE money is not where you want to be.
Unfortunately your product doesn’t fit into Peter Thiel’s "vision" of the world.
Are you able to say the product you're working on? It sounds really interesting.
See this other thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49553649
I'd be interested to hear how it goes.
Not sure how practical for your startup, but how much of the next 18 months can you fund in ways that don't create equity (or implied equity) overlords? Can design-partners prepay? Can you get paid pilots, deposits, a grant?