We agree on what has been said, but
the point I was making was so obvious
I didn't say it! Point: Servers are
so cheap that don't really need VC
equity funding to buy a good one. So,
if the 'idea' is good in the sense that
it can get the coveted 'traction', then
the 'funding' the entrepreneur needs is
essentially just the food, shelter, etc.
to write the software plus $2000- for
hardware, then go live. The if the
idea is good, can get $300,000+ a month
from a $2000- server. So, tough to
see just there the VCs have a role.
The OP made a similar point.
Then, the next obvious, so far unstated,
point is, to play in the game, the VCs
will have to do something much like the
entrepreneur does -- evaluate the 'idea'
long before 'traction', i.e., VCs will
have to actually read the 'business plans',
think about what they are reading, and
be able to do an accurate evaluation
instead of just waiting for traction,
significant and growing rapidly and
for some strange event that then has
the entrepreneur wanting to take equity
funding, go from 100% ownership to
0% ownership with his 50% +- on a
four year vesting schedule and report
to a Board that can fire him before
much of the vesting has been done
and take the company.
Then, the next obvious, so far unstated, point is, to play in the game, the VCs will have to do something much like the entrepreneur does -- evaluate the 'idea' long before 'traction', i.e., VCs will have to actually read the 'business plans', think about what they are reading, and be able to do an accurate evaluation instead of just waiting for traction, significant and growing rapidly and for some strange event that then has the entrepreneur wanting to take equity funding, go from 100% ownership to 0% ownership with his 50% +- on a four year vesting schedule and report to a Board that can fire him before much of the vesting has been done and take the company.