|
|
|
|
|
|
by bartread
2050 days ago
|
|
|
> It's painfully obvious this article was written by an investor for several reasons This seems a bit churlish as an observation. The first paragraph makes it clear the piece was written by an investor, or at least with an investor mindset: "When you meet startups and VCs these days, there’s usually a lot of verbiage spent on defining stage (pre-seed, seed, post-seed, pre-A, Early A, A, Late A, B, C…). As a venture eco-system, we continue to struggle with this." I don't see why this is painful or worthy of criticism, at least not on this point. |
|
|
This is an ASSUMPTION that all startups are VC funded startups or the goal of building a company is to get VC funding
*
That shows a very VC centric viewpoint, as opposed to a more balanced viewpoint
2nd wrong assumption -> That you can break it into 3 stages
That everyone else is wrong, and you are somehow right
3rd wrong assumption -> Growth is a stage, as opposed to something that has to be there from Day 1 until forever basically. Even if building hardware or Enterprise. You have to have a growth strategy from Day 1