[gwbas1c]

"Oh they ran the software at the warehouses in Amazon, they must be experts in that, here's $5M for your warehouse management software"

That's only 1/3rd; the other 1/3rd is "Successfully founded xyzCorp that had $xxxx / year revenue and sold for $x,xxx,xxx after 5 years."

Investing in a founding team where the founders have a solid history of starting successful companies isn't relying on pedigree.

The final 1/3rd is looking at the team dynamic during a pitch. Is the team on the same page? Are they happy with each other? Does one person do all the talking?

[20yrs_no_equity]

> Investing in a founding team where the founders have a solid history of starting successful companies isn't relying on pedigree.

If that's what they were doing then there would be a lot of talk about how those who have never founded a company can never get funding.

[hanniabu]

Is it seen as beneficial when one person does the talking?

[mbesto]

Yes. Regardless of equal equity, having a dominant player in the management team is highly valuable.