Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by RCortex 3637 days ago
From the way they've set this up, it appears to be optimal for investors and pessimal for founders. Anyone else notice the same or disagree? It's in the proof for a particular theorem.
4 comments

I disagree and believe this should be better for founders. Demo Day works so well because it's a forcing function for getting a lot of investors to see you at once and make a decision quickly, because so many other investors are deciding at the same time. Typically, investors want a long time to consider a company, and they only move fast if someone is / might bid against them. Scheduling meetings post-Demo Day is tough, and most people do it sub-optimally (by scheduling them too far apart). This new system makes meetings happen faster and more per day, increasing a chance of getting a bite quickly, which should lead to a higher chance of closing the round.

The downside I see is that if you are bad at meeting investors / need to iterate on your pitch, these meetings won't allow you to do that, as they'll be over before you can rethink it. But I think it's generally worth more / faster meetings.

*As another investor pointed out, 20 minute meetings may also be too short. I am not sure what the optimal meeting length should be. 30 minutes might be better. 1 hour is probably too long (you can always schedule a follow up meeting).

The way the algorithm is written actually balances out the preferences of both groups. Investors and founders will each get to meet with their counterparts based on a ranking they supply.
What makes you say that? This seems to me like a great idea that gives startup founders a quick pitch and an instant response from potential investors. It's almost like a match.com or Tinder for startups/investors.
It is optimal for the more scarce and selective group, whoever they happen to be in a given batch.