[benreyes]

First off congratulations to the winners.

I have a question about SeedCamp around the signalling effect by participating.

So with SeedCamp's model that a round of startup get to go through their program but only a few get funded. What happens to the startups that don't get funded, are they negatively signaled? Almost like how if your current investors don't follow on the next round and they have the money, then it signals to the market that something is very wrong.

[pmoehring]

I work at Seedcamp, our view on this:

- We see more than 200 companies a year at Seedcamp Events. A lot of them get external funding, and very often from people they have met at one of the events. I think that's the strongest "no" you can have. - Other accelerators are also quite open about their process, and on hackernews you see many startups telling their story about how they did not make it through. - Often, companies use the feedback, advice, and all of the connections they made during the day for a change in their business model or focus. In my opinion, that's the best confirmation of the value of these events (you see Ben from Geomium agrees).

[ig1]

I think people worry overmuch about signaling in these situations, people said the same thing when the Sequoia-YC partnership was announced but it had zero impact of YC companies getting funded.

It's generally known that Seedcamp only has the resources to finance a limited number of startups, so I don't think investors consider it a huge deal if you participate in the the program without getting funding.

[MathieuGosselin]

I am really proud to be a part of the winners.(Mathieu from Psykosoft) I wasn't expecting this at all!

There are some amazing talent amongst the other start-ups, there is no losers in this kind of event.

Everybody learnt (including myself) so much during the mentoring sessions that it is already what i would consider winning.

I am sure some guys there (i am thinking of Bipsly for instance) have a huge potential and will do great but eventually don't have a very mature product yet.

The constant i see in the 'winning' (i should say 'selected') start-ups is that they have a finished product and already quite a bit of traction, therefore qualify more in a logical investor mind to a 'funding'. So it would be fairer to say the ones that "didn't win" just "didn't get selected for a funding" which happen all the time ;-)