While most of these seem reasonable learnings, some of them still show major holes in understanding. For instance:
"Within the first couple of years, we realized that,
on average, any exit required between 5 and 7 years
to be worthwhile, longer than the average time we’d
hoped and planned for. This stands in sharp contrast
to the US, where exits commonly happen within a year
due to talent acquisition hires."
Even a decade ago anyone could tell you that an startup will typically take 7+ years to IPO or make a decent size trade exits (Seven year is the generally accepted median time to exit for a US VC funded startup). They seem to be confusing "real" exits with talent acquisitions, most talent acquisitions rarely involve a significant amount of money being returned to investor. Almost never at the 10x+ levels that most funds are looking for.
Also missing from the discussion is the fact that they took a massive 27% in equity for a tiny investment which meant that many talented founders wouldn't even consider touching it. As the accelerator market has become more competitive taking that kind of equity is unviable even for below-average startups.
Also missing from the discussion is the fact that they took a massive 27% in equity for a tiny investment which meant that many talented founders wouldn't even consider touching it. As the accelerator market has become more competitive taking that kind of equity is unviable even for below-average startups.