INSUBCONTINENT EXCLUSIVE:
a standard bit of startup wisdom that recently reemerged against some surprising, contrasting evidence
which was re-upped this month by venture capitalist Fred Wilson, along with some supporting arguments proffered by a Boston-based venture
TechCrunch contributorJason D
Rowley) that he was curious if startups that raise huge ($100 million and greater) early-stage rounds do better or worse than their cohorts
bloated operations, diffuse product direction and useless dalliances in cruft.Startups also die when they have too little money, of course
But the concept that there is a midpoint between insufficient funds and an ocean of capital that is optimal has lots of credibility amongst
article written by some of the folks from Founders Collective makes the point plainly:By examining the technology IPOs of the past five
years, we found that the enriched (well capitalized) companies do not meaningfully outperform their efficient (lightly capitalized) peers up
to the IPO event and actually underperform after the IPO.Raising a huge sum of money is a requirement to join the unicorn herd, but a close
different field, but are worth sharing for context
My father once told me an analogous story about a small poetry magazine, a publication that operated on the proverbial shoestring and was
always weeks away from shutting down
But it limped along, barely keeping the lights on as it produced brilliant work.Then, someone died and left the magazine a pile of money in
early can hurt a team or cause it to lose track of its mission
But for tech startups, on average, is that really correct?Maybe not
