[tylertringas]

investors like me are at a basic level middlemen. We have to raise capital from other sources and then invest it in founders. So it's not so much a questions of what kind of returns we're 'happy' with as it is, what kind of returns will enable us to keep collecting more money that we can turn around and use to back founders. If I was already a billionaire deploying my own capital, it would be a different story (and I'm actually a big proponent of folks investing with lower return expectation because I think entrepreneurship is an inherent social good) but that's not our situation.

> is all just ear candy and hype without evidence the only evidence i can think of would be reviews from other founders who've worked with us. They are a super nice bunch and are generally happy to have a chat if you're curious. Here's one founder quoting another on the non-cash benefits of working with us: https://twitter.com/_rchase_/status/1233074457406771208?s=20

>Maybe earn trust with founders before asking for or expecting extra icing? 100% Agreed.

[loceng]

What I dislike most is the unlimited extra icing. The first part with the cap is nice because the return is measurable. The unlimited extra icing required to be given on the tail end (based on negotiated %, whatever that range may be) is however not measurable, nor is what value the network may actually bring even at a basic level - and assumption is generally bad. If it was a % up until a cap of $ then arguably that's more digestible, more tangible, because it allows weighing of a reciprocal relationship within a best or worse case scenario; and of course you think that extra payout on selling company is nice but that is weighted towards the investors. A different mechanism does introduce an issue with figuring out how to implement follow-on investment agreement if future funding is a loan with 2-5x return with % equity until a $ cap; not explaining myself so well here.

I just don't like uncertainty and I like measured fairness. I understand the excitement of getting an extra payout if there's a big exit but I feel 2-5x return on investment is already a great payout - and I don't like the VC justification that a higher return is aimed for to diversify risk because that's just an excuse for VCs that are making bad investments in an unskilled, inexperienced way, hoping for a few unicorns of 100x+ return that cover the losses of bad investments + that provide all their profits.

Ultimately my goal, if I ever raise any outside money, is to retain as much equity as possible, for myself and for the team - especially early on so then later at higher sums of money are necessary for expansion then equity is more likely to be necessary to be part of the equation but the company being in a better position allows better leveraging.

I'm not trying to disparage, this is much better than traditional VC already and I also like what Indie.VC is doing - the flaming unicorn in the hero of their landing page is a nice Minimum Viable Personality touch too. Just used this opportunity as a thought exercise, I appreciate your responses. Maybe the timing just isn't right for me to be able to as reasonably consider this model until I am certain I would continue on the external fundraising path.