[Finbarr]

Investors are not weighted by their fund's size - they are ranked by the founders individually. Founders would be able to apply your stated preference for meeting with larger funds or with known high frequency investors, if they were so inclined.

[DelaneyM]

Without knowing how one ranks, though, it's substantially harder to prioritize.

This doesn't hurt the big funds so much as it does the small ones. If I were an eCommerce or Logistics company, for example, there are a subset of niche funds which would be great strategic investors; but knowing they're only going to invest in one or two ventures would leave me disinclined to prioritize them when high-frequency investors are in the mix.

I don't want to kvetch here, it's a much better system than the current free-for-all. But since investors already get the first-mover advantage, it would be nice if entrepreneurs had more complete information.

To carry the theme of relationship analogues in this thread: knowing who's interested in me is great, but I'd rather be someone's dream girl than a fallback or fling.

[Finbarr]

We do have a lot of context on investors that can help founders when choosing who to meet with. In addition, we're going to let investors specify a reason why they want to meet with each company (optionally). This should give less well known investors who are highly suited to particular companies a chance to get noticed.

[DelaneyM]

> we're going to let investors specify a reason why they want to meet with each company (optionally).

Even better! You guys have really thought this through. :)